With a $1k Price, Apple’s iPhone Crosses a Threshold(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
With a $1k Price, Apple’s iPhone Crosses a Threshold
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/10/technology/apple-iphone-price.html
725 comments
Yep the base price for a Iphone 7 Plus in Sweden is 1100$. Not sure it makes sense comparing prices like this though. In Sweden the cost of an iphone does not compete with your ability to get access to health care or education for example.
The Swedish price also includes 25% VAT, as well as the cost of consumer protection afforded by Swedish/EU laws (which in the US you have to pay extra to get through AppleCare - although AppleCare does go further)
iPhone 7+ currently in Hungary is 1174.6378 US Dollar
27% VAT <3
#wordlclass
27% VAT <3
#wordlclass
Using credit cards in the US give a pretty high level of consumer protection (over and above usual consumer protection laws) although not as much as buying an explicit warranty.
That doesn't protect you against accidental breakage. Outside of that, I rely on actual consumer protection laws, which aren't so hefty in the US - hence folks using credit cards to get some extra protection. It isn't like you are taking a big risk with Apple or your phone company ripping you off anyway.
http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guar...
http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guar...
> That doesn't protect you against accidental breakage.
Check your cardholder agreements. Mine do.
Check your cardholder agreements. Mine do.
> Check your cardholder agreements.
Only some of us haven't kept those in many, many years. And the one I had back then certainly didn't have such things, but it might have changed since the late 90's. For myself personally, it doesn't seem worth the hassle. Another bill every month that is non-necessary when I could just save some money to cover such things or get it repaired. It kinda sucked not having an actual card in the US, but here it isn't.
Is this sort of thing common on credit cards nowadays? I saw two replies mentioning their banks, and I'm now wondering how widespread such a thing is.
Only some of us haven't kept those in many, many years. And the one I had back then certainly didn't have such things, but it might have changed since the late 90's. For myself personally, it doesn't seem worth the hassle. Another bill every month that is non-necessary when I could just save some money to cover such things or get it repaired. It kinda sucked not having an actual card in the US, but here it isn't.
Is this sort of thing common on credit cards nowadays? I saw two replies mentioning their banks, and I'm now wondering how widespread such a thing is.
I don't see my credit card as "another bill"; in fact I use it to autopay as well as make daily purchases, so it becomes "the only bill" (or, one of the only).
Yeah, you can autopay on debit cards too, but I don't trust that as much.
Purchase protection is pretty common on good credit cards.
Yeah, you can autopay on debit cards too, but I don't trust that as much.
Purchase protection is pretty common on good credit cards.
You drop it and break the screen at your own fault and your card will replace it? Sorry I don't buy it.
For first 90 days AmEx "Purchase Protection" covers theft/accidental damage up to the cost of the item, without premiums or special fees. Just use the card to buy it.
https://www.americanexpress.com/us/credit-cards/features-ben...
It's only for 120 days but, e.g. this is from one of Chase's cards: What's covered: "Eligible personal property that has been damaged, stolen, or involuntary and accidental parting with property within 120 days from the date of purchase"
This is in addition to a year of additional warranty protection and various other purchase protections.
This is in addition to a year of additional warranty protection and various other purchase protections.
That text wouldn't cover accidental damage due to your own fault.
It certainly does. Most of Chase's cards cover up to $500 per occurrence. The Sapphire Reserve, and I believe Ink Preferred, cover up to $10k per occurrence. There are plenty of accounts of people taking advantage of these benefits online.
What card(s) do you have that have this protection?
I'm genuinely curious if credit card companies get involved with warranty-related actions, or really anything beyond the fitness and accurate representation at the time of purchase. As far as I can tell, thigs like AppleCare and EU VAT protections cover an almost entirely exclusive set of concerns, namely, the fitness of the product after initial purchase.
I'm not knowledgeable enough to compare directly to VAT, but many credit cards extend a product's existing warranty (90 days to two years, depending on the card), and some offer things like 90-day purchase protection (if the price changes or if merchant/manufacturer won't accept a return, the credit card will).
Purchase protection took care of a theft I had in my house last month. They just needed a receipt and a police report, and the purchase price was refunded a few days later.
Purchase protection took care of a theft I had in my house last month. They just needed a receipt and a police report, and the purchase price was refunded a few days later.
I think there's some confusion here as to what VAT means.
VAT in the EU (or anywhere else really that has the concept of VAT) normally affords no additional consumer protections on its own. It's a tax, not dissimilar at a high level to sales tax in the US, applied to goods or services at time of sale.
VAT in the EU (or anywhere else really that has the concept of VAT) normally affords no additional consumer protections on its own. It's a tax, not dissimilar at a high level to sales tax in the US, applied to goods or services at time of sale.
Thanks for the response. This is something that's not well known to me and in the age of retailers trying to upsell the same thing for a fee, I'm not surprised that it is obscured.
In all fairness, it's not a standard thing. Most of the extended card protections that go beyond purchase dispute resolution/defective product come from various premium cards more so than basic no-charge ones.
The Costco visa adds additional 2 years of warranty to all electronics purchased at Costco. It's a nice little feature.
[deleted]
I can only speak to my personal experience, but my Citi Premier card has pretty good coverage for theft and accidental damage, albeit with a relatively short coverage window compared to something like Apple Care. I'd have to look it up, but I think it was about 6 months post-purchase.
[deleted]
Why are you bringing up healthcare on an iPhone discussion? Trying to figure out how it is relevant to the pricing of an iPhone in Sweden.
As a European, I noticed that discussions held here about X in the US _always_ converge against their healthcare.
"Salary in the US is higher" - but heir healthcare sucks
"Weather in California is nicer than in Oslo" - But you don't have healtcare
"New York is such a great city to live in" - But you're left for dead
"Salary in the US is higher" - but heir healthcare sucks
"Weather in California is nicer than in Oslo" - But you don't have healtcare
"New York is such a great city to live in" - But you're left for dead
You got it right, it's difficult to imagine for a European what it's like to deal with having no medical care if unemployed.
In addition, the fact that's part of every discussion gives a hint of how much of an issue this is.
In addition, the fact that's part of every discussion gives a hint of how much of an issue this is.
Well, you can buy partly subsidized or receive fully subsidized healthcare (ACA/Medicaid). That's on top of programs like COBRA and in worst case scenarios welfare from the state, county, or federal levels. We also have CHIP on the federal level which is a separate program just for children, where the parents may have insurance but for some reason cannot insure their kids. That's on top of what the states themselves offer, but that's sort of rolled into the ACA nowadays, which makes more sense.
We're at 8% uninsured, which is nothing to brag about, but its far from a free for all post-apocalypse where people keel over in their desks or in the unemployment line. Its also important to note that those numbers include illegals who can't or won't get insurance due to citizen status and 1/3rd to 2/3rd of that number actually qualify for various insurance programs, but for some reason aren't seeking it (aside from citizen status).
We absolutely have a big problem with the rural poor and insurance, which is a hefty 14-20% of that demographic. I'm not sure what the fix here is especially considering rural states are heavily conservative and fight off ACA and Medicare/Medicaid expansion regularly.
We're at 8% uninsured, which is nothing to brag about, but its far from a free for all post-apocalypse where people keel over in their desks or in the unemployment line. Its also important to note that those numbers include illegals who can't or won't get insurance due to citizen status and 1/3rd to 2/3rd of that number actually qualify for various insurance programs, but for some reason aren't seeking it (aside from citizen status).
We absolutely have a big problem with the rural poor and insurance, which is a hefty 14-20% of that demographic. I'm not sure what the fix here is especially considering rural states are heavily conservative and fight off ACA and Medicare/Medicaid expansion regularly.
upvoted.
as far as the rural areas vs ACA are concerned - before ACA a lumberjack/construction/handyman/hunting-fishing guide etc type dude could by themselves cheap health insurance that wouldn't break the bank off-season. now it's an ordeal.
The problem there is that low rent health insurance didn't cover anything. You'd had catastrophic plans with $2,500+ deductibles and a cap at $25k. It didn't cover preventative maintenance, doctor visits, kids, drugs, etc. It only made sense in a "what if I injure myself at work, but not too seriously" kind of way.
I imagine ACA mandated insurance is a net boon here even if the monthlies are more.
I imagine ACA mandated insurance is a net boon here even if the monthlies are more.
Strange how the US healthcare setup is largely unchanged over many years, yet the general perception is that it's suddenly total chaos. I'm not saying the status quo is best, but we didn't suddenly plunge into a crisis.
It's been incredibly bad for at least ~3 decades. A sick person with insurance without a dedicated advocate (relative or friend) watching out for them non-stop will likely end up having several care screw-ups occur to them, and with a bill ludicrously rather than just insanely large and probably a few things in collections (even if they can pay them) if said advocate doesn't spend a couple hundred hours fighting insurance and hospital billing and mailing regulators and wrestling a mountain of paperwork and bills.
Watched this process with sick relatives in the 90s, and it was already fucked-up then. Gone through it with my wife's 3 pregnancies and a couple family illnesses in the last 5ish years. Same thing. It's a broken, evil system that ruthlessly exploits and crushes anyone without the time, wits, and wherewithal to fight it every step, and it has been for a long time. I think what changed is we have much better exposure to what it's like elsewhere, so more of us are aware that there is no reason whatsoever to keep hurting people this way.
Watched this process with sick relatives in the 90s, and it was already fucked-up then. Gone through it with my wife's 3 pregnancies and a couple family illnesses in the last 5ish years. Same thing. It's a broken, evil system that ruthlessly exploits and crushes anyone without the time, wits, and wherewithal to fight it every step, and it has been for a long time. I think what changed is we have much better exposure to what it's like elsewhere, so more of us are aware that there is no reason whatsoever to keep hurting people this way.
[deleted]
Good points. Which leads to the question, when everybody has "free" healthcare, who gets the top docs, and who gets the bottom and average docs?
In general, you can always skip the whole gov't funded healthcare system to get a particular private service at a full cost, and some (though not most, depends on the specialty - plastic surgery will but trauma neurosurgery won't) of the top docs will work in this manner.
Other than that, the patient-doctor match gets mostly allocated on the basis of location and narrow specialty, or with limited availability; e.g. if you want a particular popular doc, then (s)he might have a queue, so you either wait when they become available or pick someone else.
Other than that, the patient-doctor match gets mostly allocated on the basis of location and narrow specialty, or with limited availability; e.g. if you want a particular popular doc, then (s)he might have a queue, so you either wait when they become available or pick someone else.
Not sure. How's it work in the entire rest of the OECD?
Almost everyone is politically motivated in some way to slam the healthcare system; nobody is politically motivated to defend it.
Personally I'd offer the somewhat-feeble defense that it isn't as bad as people say it is, but I'd stop far short of calling it good... because I've got my own political axes to grind too, even if they are nearly diametrically opposed to the local consensus. But it isn't actually true that the American health system requires you to sign into indentured servitude the moment you walk in the emergency room door, and injects you with strychnine and tosses you out the door if you can't pay enough to satisfy the bureaucracy this week. Ambulance crews do not prowl the street and abduct unsuspecting European tourists and force them to donate blood before they're allowed to escape. Doctors do not actually giggle with glee and make "chaching!" noises when giving you bad diagnoses.
Personally I'd offer the somewhat-feeble defense that it isn't as bad as people say it is, but I'd stop far short of calling it good... because I've got my own political axes to grind too, even if they are nearly diametrically opposed to the local consensus. But it isn't actually true that the American health system requires you to sign into indentured servitude the moment you walk in the emergency room door, and injects you with strychnine and tosses you out the door if you can't pay enough to satisfy the bureaucracy this week. Ambulance crews do not prowl the street and abduct unsuspecting European tourists and force them to donate blood before they're allowed to escape. Doctors do not actually giggle with glee and make "chaching!" noises when giving you bad diagnoses.
> Ambulance crews do not prowl the street and abduct unsuspecting European tourists and force them to donate blood before they're allowed to escape.
Why would they? The US produces a surplus of blood and tissue, to the point that many other countries (particularly in Europe) have to purchase to from the US to address their own shortages.
Why would they? The US produces a surplus of blood and tissue, to the point that many other countries (particularly in Europe) have to purchase to from the US to address their own shortages.
> Strange how the US healthcare setup is largely unchanged over many years, yet the general perception is that it's suddenly total chaos.
It's been horrible for a long time (and there's been outrage for a long-time: while it got derailed and we got nothing out of it but HIPAA, the bad state of healthcare and plans to reform it were central to the Clinton campaign in 1992—and while Clinton tried for a complicated scheme involving insurance companies, polling showed majority support for single-payer even then; the ACA is often pointed out to be a copy of Romneycare in Massachusetts, but what is less commonly pointed out is that both are copies of something proposed by the insurance industry and embraced by the Republican Party as a desirable national reform direction shortly after Clinton's reform effort failed, because even then it was widely perceived that something had to be done.)
> I'm not saying the status quo is best, but we didn't suddenly plunge into a crisis.
No, we've been in a crisis for more than a generation.
It's been horrible for a long time (and there's been outrage for a long-time: while it got derailed and we got nothing out of it but HIPAA, the bad state of healthcare and plans to reform it were central to the Clinton campaign in 1992—and while Clinton tried for a complicated scheme involving insurance companies, polling showed majority support for single-payer even then; the ACA is often pointed out to be a copy of Romneycare in Massachusetts, but what is less commonly pointed out is that both are copies of something proposed by the insurance industry and embraced by the Republican Party as a desirable national reform direction shortly after Clinton's reform effort failed, because even then it was widely perceived that something had to be done.)
> I'm not saying the status quo is best, but we didn't suddenly plunge into a crisis.
No, we've been in a crisis for more than a generation.
> what is less commonly pointed out is that both are copies of something proposed by the insurance industry and embraced by the Republican Party as a desirable national reform direction shortly after Clinton's reform effort failed
It's less-commonly pointed out because it's not really true.
It's true that there was one bill, in 1993, that was proposed by a Republican and which happened to somewhat resemble the Affordable Care Act at a very high level. However:
a) It was proposed by a Republican senator from a very blue state (Rhode Island)
b) That Republican senator lost his next re-election bid
c) The bill never received a vote
e) The bill was only one of many GOP-sponsored healthcare bills that year
f) Conservative and moderate Republicans strongly criticized the bill
g) While it bore some resemblance to the ACA at a very high level, it was a very different bill in details and implementation, so it's misleading to suggest that supporting one and not the other would be hypocritical. There were a lot of things Democrats like about the ACA that weren't in Chafee's bill, and there are a lot of things that Republicans might like in Chafee's bill (or the ANHRA in the House) that were not present in the ACA.
It's less-commonly pointed out because it's not really true.
It's true that there was one bill, in 1993, that was proposed by a Republican and which happened to somewhat resemble the Affordable Care Act at a very high level. However:
a) It was proposed by a Republican senator from a very blue state (Rhode Island)
b) That Republican senator lost his next re-election bid
c) The bill never received a vote
e) The bill was only one of many GOP-sponsored healthcare bills that year
f) Conservative and moderate Republicans strongly criticized the bill
g) While it bore some resemblance to the ACA at a very high level, it was a very different bill in details and implementation, so it's misleading to suggest that supporting one and not the other would be hypocritical. There were a lot of things Democrats like about the ACA that weren't in Chafee's bill, and there are a lot of things that Republicans might like in Chafee's bill (or the ANHRA in the House) that were not present in the ACA.
Sure, there were a number of different subsidized-private-insurance schemes over the years (including the one briefly rhetorically embraced by George W. Bush but, again, that never went far legislatively) that differed from the ACA model in that only HDHP/HSA plans would be subsdized.
> so it's misleading to suggest that supporting one and not the other would be hypocritical
I wasn't suggesting that, I was illustrating that the perceived problem and many elements of the potential solution space have been part of the national dialogue for a long time.
> so it's misleading to suggest that supporting one and not the other would be hypocritical
I wasn't suggesting that, I was illustrating that the perceived problem and many elements of the potential solution space have been part of the national dialogue for a long time.
Price of healthcare is driven by a luck of supply (medical professionals, hospitals, affordable drugs) and supply is limited by regulation (expensive and ridiculously long educational process for physicians, huge liability and regulatory burden for practitioners and hospitals, very long and expensive approval process for moving a new drug through FDA, plus again liability cost) .
Regulation in turn is driven by lobbying efforts of large professional groups (trial lawyers, AMA, large pharma etc).
In another word it is a corrupted system that manages stay afloat as people in power legally able to get their cut through lobbying.
Regulation in turn is driven by lobbying efforts of large professional groups (trial lawyers, AMA, large pharma etc).
In another word it is a corrupted system that manages stay afloat as people in power legally able to get their cut through lobbying.
[deleted]
People are getting relatively poorer in comparison to their health care costs. So yes, we have been getting worse, and at some point the character of a problem changes into a crisis, which can seem "sudden".
> People are getting relatively poorer in comparison to their health care costs.
That's not really true; total expenditures have increased, but that's largely because the treatments and care that people are choosing are different (and more expensive) than previous ones.
Put another way: today you can still get the same type and quality of care that was available in the 1960s, and it'll be cheaper than it was in the 1960s (measured in 2017 dollars). You just probably don't want it, because it's nowhere near the current expectations and standards of quality of care.
That's not really true; total expenditures have increased, but that's largely because the treatments and care that people are choosing are different (and more expensive) than previous ones.
Put another way: today you can still get the same type and quality of care that was available in the 1960s, and it'll be cheaper than it was in the 1960s (measured in 2017 dollars). You just probably don't want it, because it's nowhere near the current expectations and standards of quality of care.
> Put another way: today you can still get the same type and quality of care that was available in the 1960s,
No, in many cases you can't because the techniques and absence of procedural and other safeguards are no longer up to the standard of care in the profession, older drugs are no longer produced, etc.
No, in many cases you can't because the techniques and absence of procedural and other safeguards are no longer up to the standard of care in the profession, older drugs are no longer produced, etc.
It's a lot more expensive than it used to be. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.PCAP?locations=U...
Ok, the price increased. And, let's ignore related factors such as the increased cost of medical education and advances in medical care (my aunt got a new heart a year ago!)
My view of the mainstream story is that things went from ok to chaos within the past, say, 3 years.
Instead, the costs have been steadily rising while voters have repeatedly opted not to make changes.
Thought experiment: what if gas or milk prices had increased at the same rate? Education cost has increased a lot, but that's mostly inflated by student loans that I predict will implode like subprime mortgages.
My view of the mainstream story is that things went from ok to chaos within the past, say, 3 years.
Instead, the costs have been steadily rising while voters have repeatedly opted not to make changes.
Thought experiment: what if gas or milk prices had increased at the same rate? Education cost has increased a lot, but that's mostly inflated by student loans that I predict will implode like subprime mortgages.
> Instead, the costs have been steadily rising while voters have repeatedly opted not to make changes.
Have voters done that, though? I mean look at the trouble Republicans are having repealing the ACA. Voters seem to not want to repeal it. It seems like only the Republican leadership actually wants it repealed. My understanding is that when you ask individual voters of all stripes, they agree that pre-existing conditions should not stop you from getting affordable healthcare, and that lifetime limits are unfair across the board. But those are the things the Republican leadership wants to axe first.
Have voters done that, though? I mean look at the trouble Republicans are having repealing the ACA. Voters seem to not want to repeal it. It seems like only the Republican leadership actually wants it repealed. My understanding is that when you ask individual voters of all stripes, they agree that pre-existing conditions should not stop you from getting affordable healthcare, and that lifetime limits are unfair across the board. But those are the things the Republican leadership wants to axe first.
Look at all the congressional seats the Democrats lost (and the POTUS seat) after Obama pushed through his plan.
It's always harder to repeal a law, versus blocking it from passing. As soon as a law is passed, it's the new status quo. And recall how close the recent repeal vote was.
Why haven't we repealed the laws against weed and poker yet?
It's always harder to repeal a law, versus blocking it from passing. As soon as a law is passed, it's the new status quo. And recall how close the recent repeal vote was.
Why haven't we repealed the laws against weed and poker yet?
Look at all the votes the Democrats lost after a bunch of states effectively blocked blacks and students from voting.
> You got it right, it's difficult to imagine for a European what it's like to deal with having no medical care if unemployed.
you buy subsidized insurance. do Europeans really think the USA is just a free for all ?
you buy subsidized insurance. do Europeans really think the USA is just a free for all ?
Yes, or worse. I'm American. I live in Norway. Most folks I talk to from other countries - not just Europe - find the American health care system to be cruel and too expensive for the common person.
And by the way, I do not buy subsidized insurance. I pay my taxes, and I have health insurance. My taxes pay for health insurance. There is nothing else to pay to get that, other than a small fee for the doctor out of pocket up to a certain amount. No doctor, no medicine = no payment. Other than taxes, assuming I'm working and paying taxes.
And by the way, I do not buy subsidized insurance. I pay my taxes, and I have health insurance. My taxes pay for health insurance. There is nothing else to pay to get that, other than a small fee for the doctor out of pocket up to a certain amount. No doctor, no medicine = no payment. Other than taxes, assuming I'm working and paying taxes.
Nit: "everyone" pays taxes - you get healthcare even if you don't pay any taxes (eg: college student without taxable income, unemployed not receiving benefits (yes, there's income tax on unemployment benefits)).
That's a very small bit of the population, but you are right. Nearly everyone gets health care, minus some classes of immigrants. I knew there were taxes on unemployment benefits (and i'm not opposed to that). But even the folks not paying employment taxes generally pay tax through food, transportation, entertainment, and other things.
There's a point below which you can't afford any kind of even subsidized insurance. Not if you want to keep paying rent, buy food, car insurance to keep going to work, phone bill, electric bill and so on. Whereas in the part of Europe where I live, the less you have the less healthcare costs you.
EDIT: The less it costs for the same quality.
EDIT: The less it costs for the same quality.
I'm not really sure where you get your information. Anyone can get Heath insurance from the healthcare.gov marketplace.
Your salary requirements factor into the price. Someone making only 17k a year is capped at $54 a month premium. There are caps at certain salary intervals.
> Whereas in the part of Europe where I live, the less you have the less healthcare costs you.
100% true for the US as well. Please don't listen to news or internet comments. Verify the facts!
Your salary requirements factor into the price. Someone making only 17k a year is capped at $54 a month premium. There are caps at certain salary intervals.
> Whereas in the part of Europe where I live, the less you have the less healthcare costs you.
100% true for the US as well. Please don't listen to news or internet comments. Verify the facts!
If you are not getting subsidized because of income, you have to pay for everyone else who is subsidized.
I was buying plans from health care exchange for 2 years and my last plan for two (parent and child) cost me 500$ per month with 6500 deductible per person - 13000$ total.
So effectively I had only a catastrophic insurance but was forced to pay for some subsidized guys who had a platinum plan with no deductible for 54$ per month. Worst situation for people like me!
I was buying plans from health care exchange for 2 years and my last plan for two (parent and child) cost me 500$ per month with 6500 deductible per person - 13000$ total.
So effectively I had only a catastrophic insurance but was forced to pay for some subsidized guys who had a platinum plan with no deductible for 54$ per month. Worst situation for people like me!
Before that point you qualify for free insurance through one of many government welfare programs. Learn about the system before you criticize it.
That's actually not true in any of the states that didn't sign on to the ACA Medicaid expansion, which, yes, was designed so that between exchange subsidies and Medicaid eligibility there would be affordable subsidized or government provided coverage across the whole spectrum where people didn't have employer coverage or the ability to afford unsubsidized coverage.
It's also not true of extremely high cost of living areas such as NYC or the bay area where you're living beyond your means long before you qualify for government programs based on poverty levels that are calculated averaged across the nation.
The system has warts. There are good reasons to criticize it. But saying we leave the poor dying in the streets because, well, fuck 'em they're poor, is both untrue and insulting.
The system has warts. There are good reasons to criticize it. But saying we leave the poor dying in the streets because, well, fuck 'em they're poor, is both untrue and insulting.
> But saying we leave the poor dying in the streets because, well, fuck 'em they're poor, is both untrue and insulting.
Well, except that it's exactly true that that’s why the “warts” that you acknowledge which do, in fact, deny swaths of the poor access to care are tolerated.
Well, except that it's exactly true that that’s why the “warts” that you acknowledge which do, in fact, deny swaths of the poor access to care are tolerated.
Subsidized insurance which still gives you costs for healthcare and sometimes doesn't cover certain tests or treatments that are considered not essential, such as birth control to treat polycystic ovaries or a blood test to diagnose functional sexual hormone levels(such a test would also detect polycystic ovaries, which untreated results in further health complications), More effective antibiotics for infection, multiple kinds of mental health medication, and dermatological medication. Not to mention confusing limitAtions of location of treatment due to network effects.
They do because that's how most educated Americans describe their country to Europeans.
You walk into an emergency room and get treated without paying a cent.
Emergency rooms only have to stabilize you, they don't have to treat you. It's a big difference.
> Emergency rooms only have to stabilize you, they don't have to treat you. It's a big difference.
No, and you don't want an emergency room treating you, because emergency physicians aren't trained to provide anything other than acute care.
That said, the point is moot, because once a patient is stabilized, if they need further care, they'll be admitted, and receive care from an internist.
Afterwards, they'll receive a bill for a rather large amount, which the hospital doesn't expect them to actually pay (but for legal reasons is required to present them with). If they know about this, the uninsured patient can almost always get away with paying less than 5-10% of the total (initial) bill, and the hospital writes off the remainder so the bill is paid in full (ie, it does not get sent to collections). Of course, most patients don't know any of that.
The billing situation is 100% fucked, and the reasons for that are way too long to explain here, but it's not true to say that an unemployed person without insurance can't receive anything but acute care from a hospital, or that they would necessarily have to end up in debt for doing so.
No, and you don't want an emergency room treating you, because emergency physicians aren't trained to provide anything other than acute care.
That said, the point is moot, because once a patient is stabilized, if they need further care, they'll be admitted, and receive care from an internist.
Afterwards, they'll receive a bill for a rather large amount, which the hospital doesn't expect them to actually pay (but for legal reasons is required to present them with). If they know about this, the uninsured patient can almost always get away with paying less than 5-10% of the total (initial) bill, and the hospital writes off the remainder so the bill is paid in full (ie, it does not get sent to collections). Of course, most patients don't know any of that.
The billing situation is 100% fucked, and the reasons for that are way too long to explain here, but it's not true to say that an unemployed person without insurance can't receive anything but acute care from a hospital, or that they would necessarily have to end up in debt for doing so.
> That said, the point is moot, because once a patient is stabilized, if they need further care, they'll be admitted, and receive care from an internist.
No, they often won't, because while ER stabilization without regard to ability to pay is mandatory, subsequent admission and treatment is not.
If the condition is not stabilized in the ER, they may be admitted for stabilization to fulfill the mandate, but there is no mandate for admission for treatment after stabilization.
No, they often won't, because while ER stabilization without regard to ability to pay is mandatory, subsequent admission and treatment is not.
If the condition is not stabilized in the ER, they may be admitted for stabilization to fulfill the mandate, but there is no mandate for admission for treatment after stabilization.
> No, they often won't, because while ER stabilization without regard to ability to pay is mandatory, subsequent admission and treatment is not. If the condition is not stabilized in the ER, they may be admitted for stabilization to fulfill the mandate, but there is no mandate for admission for treatment after stabilization.
That's not really true, and it's a common misconception that arises due to the way the ER mandate is specified in law (explicitly, and via a single bill), as opposed to the confluence of a few different regulations.
In short, because of the intersection of ways in which hospitals are and are not allowed to discriminate against patients by insurance status, what ends up happening in practice is that the decision to admit a patient is rarely made with the patient's insurance status as a determining factor.
That's especially true for public hospitals, but it's true of many private hospital situations as well. (Note that this doesn't apply to the decision of which hospital to admit a patient to - a single ER which has more than one associated hospital may decide to admit a patient to the public hospital instead of the private one based on their insurance status).
That's not really true, and it's a common misconception that arises due to the way the ER mandate is specified in law (explicitly, and via a single bill), as opposed to the confluence of a few different regulations.
In short, because of the intersection of ways in which hospitals are and are not allowed to discriminate against patients by insurance status, what ends up happening in practice is that the decision to admit a patient is rarely made with the patient's insurance status as a determining factor.
That's especially true for public hospitals, but it's true of many private hospital situations as well. (Note that this doesn't apply to the decision of which hospital to admit a patient to - a single ER which has more than one associated hospital may decide to admit a patient to the public hospital instead of the private one based on their insurance status).
Seriously, if I believe what everyone comments on HN I would think hospitals are turning sick or injured people away.
My mama taught me to not talk about things I don't know anything about. I wish more people listened to their mamas.
To the curious Europeans out there, if you lose your job you can stay on your job's health plan for 18 months while you look for new work. If you're unemployed that long then you'd qualify for Medicaid after that, the government insurance program for the poor. If for whatever reason you really didn't have insurance you will nevertheless never be turned away from any hospital emergency room. This "die in he street because you have no insurance" is a myth and total hogwash.
To the curious Europeans out there, if you lose your job you can stay on your job's health plan for 18 months while you look for new work. If you're unemployed that long then you'd qualify for Medicaid after that, the government insurance program for the poor. If for whatever reason you really didn't have insurance you will nevertheless never be turned away from any hospital emergency room. This "die in he street because you have no insurance" is a myth and total hogwash.
> Put another way: today you can still get the same type and quality of care that was available in the 1960s,
If you can pay the full premiums, including the part your employer paid while you were employed.
> If unemployed that long then you'd qualify for Medicaid after that, the government insurance program for the poor.
You don't qualify for Medicaid based on duration of unemployment; whether, and in what form, you would qualify for Medicaid depends on income, assets, and state you live in (Medicaid is a state-run program with some federal standards, though even the most basic broad-strokes qualifications differ between states, especially between those participating in the expansion under the ACA and those not.)
> If for whatever reason you really didn't have insurance you will nevertheless never be turned away from any hospital emergency room.
But will be booted into the street from the ER after stabilization without treatment of the underlying condition.
> This "die in he street because you have no insurance" is a myth and total hogwash.
Except that people do, in fact, die because of lack of health insurance in the US.
http://www.pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortal...
If you can pay the full premiums, including the part your employer paid while you were employed.
> If unemployed that long then you'd qualify for Medicaid after that, the government insurance program for the poor.
You don't qualify for Medicaid based on duration of unemployment; whether, and in what form, you would qualify for Medicaid depends on income, assets, and state you live in (Medicaid is a state-run program with some federal standards, though even the most basic broad-strokes qualifications differ between states, especially between those participating in the expansion under the ACA and those not.)
> If for whatever reason you really didn't have insurance you will nevertheless never be turned away from any hospital emergency room.
But will be booted into the street from the ER after stabilization without treatment of the underlying condition.
> This "die in he street because you have no insurance" is a myth and total hogwash.
Except that people do, in fact, die because of lack of health insurance in the US.
http://www.pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortal...
Make sure mama also told you these two things... Cobra insurance after losing your job requires you to pay the full premium which can be upwards of 10k per year. Also Medicaid has a very low asset threshold that you can still qualify unless you are pregnant, have young kids, disabled or elderly. ACA subsidy is the best shot for most in this situation but who knows how long till it is dismantled.
It's not hogwash when actual, documented cases exist of people not going to the emergency room for fear of being crushed to death by the debt from an ER visit. And COBRA doesn't just give you free insurance for 18 months, you have to pay the full premium for it. If you're unemployed, how in the hell do you expect to pay the full premium as opposed to the premium that you were paying before that was subsidized by your employer?
You've clearly never, ever been in a position where money was an issue for you. Especially not to the point where you felt your life was in danger because of it.
You've clearly never, ever been in a position where money was an issue for you. Especially not to the point where you felt your life was in danger because of it.
> You've clearly never, ever been in a position where money was an issue for you.
I have.
I have.
Oh, ok. /s
If you had been, you wouldn't be handwaving away legitimate concerns over the system of healthcare. Considering you didn't even address any of the points I mentioned, I have a feeling you have no response.
If you had been, you wouldn't be handwaving away legitimate concerns over the system of healthcare. Considering you didn't even address any of the points I mentioned, I have a feeling you have no response.
I was reminded of this again over the weekend when listening to this story on the radio: http://www.npr.org/2017/09/10/549489252/emperor-x-we-are-muc...
"Like many musicians, Matheny went years with minimal health insurance, or none at all. In Germany, with no insurance, he wound up in debt of about €30,000 — roughly $35,000. That's what Matheny calculated he would have owed in the U.S. if he did have insurance."
"Like many musicians, Matheny went years with minimal health insurance, or none at all. In Germany, with no insurance, he wound up in debt of about €30,000 — roughly $35,000. That's what Matheny calculated he would have owed in the U.S. if he did have insurance."
Healthcare sucks AND it's ridiculously expensive.
My healthcare plan costs me $1,200/month for my family of 4. It went up nearly 30% this year and is expected to do the same next year. Give it a few years and it will be $2,000! I have a good job, but if that keeps going I won't have any choice but pay the fine/tax.
So back to the $1,000 phone. If all phones cost $1000 - I'd be more likely to go without one.
So back to the $1,000 phone. If all phones cost $1000 - I'd be more likely to go without one.
If you're Christian check out medishare (and other alternatives). Disclaimer: I'm not a still for them.
[deleted]
Yes! As a twenty something single I was shocked that people saw paying $200 out of pocket each month as a privilege that comes with working. Clearly, for me it was a pure waste because I used exactly zero dollars worth of health care myself. Of course, people with infants absolutely need it. I had a coworker who had basically the same story as Jimmy Kimmel (newborn with heart defect). I can't imagine how much quality care would cost if he didn't have health insurance through work. I mean at some point there were apparently dozens of specialists involved with the case... I'm sure each of them are billed at hundreds of dollars each hour.
I just want to say that at the end of the day there is no solution other than reducing the cost: be it healthcare or education or retirement...
I just want to say that at the end of the day there is no solution other than reducing the cost: be it healthcare or education or retirement...
I also skipped getting health insurance in my 20s, which I deeply regretted when I needed unexpected emergency surgery to remove a diseased organ.
The hospital that did it was religiously affiliated and knocked a huge amount off my total hospital stay, but I still paid a lot out of pocket.
What's worse is, until the ACA came along, that bout of uninsured surgery made me uninsurable from then on--I had "pre-existing condition". The ACA has made it possible for me to actually buy health insurance at all again.
Of course, I'm still hoping the Medicare for All movement starts gaining steam...
The hospital that did it was religiously affiliated and knocked a huge amount off my total hospital stay, but I still paid a lot out of pocket.
What's worse is, until the ACA came along, that bout of uninsured surgery made me uninsurable from then on--I had "pre-existing condition". The ACA has made it possible for me to actually buy health insurance at all again.
Of course, I'm still hoping the Medicare for All movement starts gaining steam...
Until you have a catastrophic health issue like say total kidney failure at 18 which happed to some one I know or you need a transplant I dread to think what my recent kidney transplant would costs in the USA as opposed to the UK
[deleted]
not getting healthcare as a 20-something is popular, but incredibly shortsighted.
> not getting healthcare as a 20-something is popular, but incredibly shortsighted.
My idea is that it is not something that you should have to think about. I mean I understand it is a difficult topic because you have these outliers that can totally destroy your life if you have a baby with a malfunctioning heart or whatever but it comes back to the question of what we think is fair. I sincerely believe that healthcare is too expensive. The problem is that nobody who is in a position to cut costs has the incentive to do so.
I mean I hear all these complaints about medicare from providers like oh there are restrictions on what you can bill and what you can't and I am just thinking "good" because otherwise the doctor will put every single patient who comes in with a stomach ache through an MRI without using any of her judgment. I mean it looks badly on her if one out of a thousand patients turns out to have something she didn't catch but it doesn't hurt her at all for all those 999 useless MRI and the cost of those. The hospital is happy because they already have the machine and the technician who is there so is drawing salary so they have an incentive to maximize the use of the machine and the technician.
I am hopeful for medicare for all but we should remember that this is not the end of the problem. There are no silver bullets. As a society, we have to constantly make difficult choices and I for one support "death panels" which to me means that certain cases where the cost is too great AND the outcome is not good enough can and should get denied.
My idea is that it is not something that you should have to think about. I mean I understand it is a difficult topic because you have these outliers that can totally destroy your life if you have a baby with a malfunctioning heart or whatever but it comes back to the question of what we think is fair. I sincerely believe that healthcare is too expensive. The problem is that nobody who is in a position to cut costs has the incentive to do so.
I mean I hear all these complaints about medicare from providers like oh there are restrictions on what you can bill and what you can't and I am just thinking "good" because otherwise the doctor will put every single patient who comes in with a stomach ache through an MRI without using any of her judgment. I mean it looks badly on her if one out of a thousand patients turns out to have something she didn't catch but it doesn't hurt her at all for all those 999 useless MRI and the cost of those. The hospital is happy because they already have the machine and the technician who is there so is drawing salary so they have an incentive to maximize the use of the machine and the technician.
I am hopeful for medicare for all but we should remember that this is not the end of the problem. There are no silver bullets. As a society, we have to constantly make difficult choices and I for one support "death panels" which to me means that certain cases where the cost is too great AND the outcome is not good enough can and should get denied.
> where the cost is too great AND the outcome is not good enough can and should get denied.
I'm not completely clear on the point you're trying to make, but this is how things work in socialised healthcare. Not everything is paid for - instead the money that is available is spent on those that return the best value-for-money balanced against not being unfair on an individual level. The question of whether to MRI everyone with tummy pain is translatable into a clinical question and can be tested in clinical studies.
In the UK we work on using a QALY - or quality-adjusted life-year to help with these sorts of decisions. They are used on boards in NICE (for general health-provisioning guidance) and the cancer drugs fund [1] which aims to give quick guidance on the fast-developing and expensive field of anti-cancer therapies.
Sure there are no silver bullets, but issues you bring up are being tackled to a relatively sophisticated degree in other countries.
[1] https://www.england.nhs.uk/cancer/cdf/
I'm not completely clear on the point you're trying to make, but this is how things work in socialised healthcare. Not everything is paid for - instead the money that is available is spent on those that return the best value-for-money balanced against not being unfair on an individual level. The question of whether to MRI everyone with tummy pain is translatable into a clinical question and can be tested in clinical studies.
In the UK we work on using a QALY - or quality-adjusted life-year to help with these sorts of decisions. They are used on boards in NICE (for general health-provisioning guidance) and the cancer drugs fund [1] which aims to give quick guidance on the fast-developing and expensive field of anti-cancer therapies.
Sure there are no silver bullets, but issues you bring up are being tackled to a relatively sophisticated degree in other countries.
[1] https://www.england.nhs.uk/cancer/cdf/
> Sure there are no silver bullets, but issues you bring up are being tackled to a relatively sophisticated degree in other countries.
That's perfect! One more question: how do you handle things like tobacco, alcohol, sugar, daredevils (think jackass the TV show)?
That's perfect! One more question: how do you handle things like tobacco, alcohol, sugar, daredevils (think jackass the TV show)?
I'd say for most of us in the US it's a non-issue -- you either have it, or you don't, and that hasn't changed a ton in the past few decades. I don't go around thinking "man, if I was in Sweden, I'd ALSO have health care just like I do today".
A discussion about pricing is a discussion that includes purchasing power in its scope. Cost of living is relevant to that discussion.
I think it's probably a proxy for talking about "discretionary income" or something. My kid may have more discretionary income than I do if he doesn't have to pay a mortgage and utility bill every month. So a higher cost may actually be more affordable if other things don't have to be paid for.
I don't really know how to compare countries like that- but I would wager somebody has tried.
I don't really know how to compare countries like that- but I would wager somebody has tried.
Because in most of Europe, sales tax (which therefore is added onto the purchase of your new iPhone), will in some part go towards the funding of universal coverage free-at-point-of-use healthcare.
In the US you get your phone cheaper. But you buy your healthcare.
Most Europeans would prefer to pay more for their phone and know everybody in their neighbourhood gets free medical for life in return.
In the US you get your phone cheaper. But you buy your healthcare.
Most Europeans would prefer to pay more for their phone and know everybody in their neighbourhood gets free medical for life in return.
Before the ACA a family of 4 could get health insurance from the private market for 350 a month or 4200 a year and it's tax deductible. In Germany, a family of 4 making 75k$ a year pay 7.5% or 5,625$.
The US system was cheaper and comparable. Now it's dramatically more expensive for the same cost. All we got from the government is expense. This is why many here are not pro-single payer.
The US system was cheaper and comparable. Now it's dramatically more expensive for the same cost. All we got from the government is expense. This is why many here are not pro-single payer.
You can't make comparisons like that.
Take a look at the U.S. public healthcare expenditure per capita. It's higher than countries like the U.K. (with fully tax-funded healthcare), probably even Germany. And that's before accounting for private funds.
Again your example is a poor way of comparing things, but you didn't even factor in how much you pay towards Medicare/Medicaid.
Last time I checked, in the UK I pay less towards the NHS and the best private health insurance I could find, combined, than I'd be paying in the U.S. in taxation towards healthcare alone.
All these comparisons between the US and Europe regarding healthcare are useless. The common suggestion that the US would need a 20% VAT or higher income tax to afford universal healthcare is absolutely false.
Take a look at the U.S. public healthcare expenditure per capita. It's higher than countries like the U.K. (with fully tax-funded healthcare), probably even Germany. And that's before accounting for private funds.
Again your example is a poor way of comparing things, but you didn't even factor in how much you pay towards Medicare/Medicaid.
Last time I checked, in the UK I pay less towards the NHS and the best private health insurance I could find, combined, than I'd be paying in the U.S. in taxation towards healthcare alone.
All these comparisons between the US and Europe regarding healthcare are useless. The common suggestion that the US would need a 20% VAT or higher income tax to afford universal healthcare is absolutely false.
> Before the ACA a family of 4 could get health insurance from the private market for 350 a month or 4200 a year and it's tax deductible.
Or not at all, depending on pre-existing conditions, continuity of past coverage, and other factors.
Or not at all, depending on pre-existing conditions, continuity of past coverage, and other factors.
Which is a fair, but statistically insignificant point. We had a lot of uninsured that could have afforded insurance without government aid. Now we have to get aid to afford anything.
You could say the same thing a different way. I'd like to see a study comparing total costs of the two over a decade.
In Europe you pay more taxes but pay less at the doctor.
In US you pay less taxes but might pay more if you need to go to a doctor.
Sales tax is a state thing and many US states don't have it. For example Florida doesn't have Sales Tax or Income Tax.
In Europe you pay more taxes but pay less at the doctor.
In US you pay less taxes but might pay more if you need to go to a doctor.
Sales tax is a state thing and many US states don't have it. For example Florida doesn't have Sales Tax or Income Tax.
Probably because prominent American politicians brought up iPhones in health care discussions recently. "And so maybe, rather than getting that new iPhone that they just love and they want to spend hundreds of dollars on, maybe they should invest in their own healthcare." - Actual statement by actual (now retired) American member of Congress in March.
The iPhone is more expensive in part because it includes a 25% sales tax...
My point was that there are other factors than price which influences whether or not someone will buy something if you look at the entire world. I just gave two example of such factors. And I'm surprised this was not obvious.
It's also the userbase or the marketing there (unsure which one). I was in Sweden few years ago, gislaved / hestra, and overall nothing else was being sold besides iPhone. It came as a shock to me.
Only one of the tech toys stores that we visited had Samsung at the time.
Only one of the tech toys stores that we visited had Samsung at the time.
Looks like your view is biased by what stores you visited. All stores where I live sell a mixture of brands, with the obvious exception of the Apple store.
I think the largest stores are Elgiganten, Mediamarkt, Netonnet and all of those sell a mixture.
A quick look at price comparison site for my area shows 80 stores selling iPhone 7 and 72 sellingg Galaxy S8. And that includes the Apple stores.
I think the largest stores are Elgiganten, Mediamarkt, Netonnet and all of those sell a mixture.
A quick look at price comparison site for my area shows 80 stores selling iPhone 7 and 72 sellingg Galaxy S8. And that includes the Apple stores.
Fully agreed. I can't imagine Sweden having less choices than Norway, considering full EU membership and Norway being known for its lack of choice.
gwatch(2)
> For Example, HongKong used to have the cheapest iPhone around the world, it was priced the same as US and because there are no Sales tax, it was 10-15% cheaper.
Could you explain this differently? If it had the same price as the US (converted to HKD), and no sales tax, it would be the same price as buying it in (say) Oregon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_taxes_in_the_United_Stat...
> Since January 2017, 5 states (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon) do not levy a statewide sales tax
Could you explain this differently? If it had the same price as the US (converted to HKD), and no sales tax, it would be the same price as buying it in (say) Oregon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_taxes_in_the_United_Stat...
> Since January 2017, 5 states (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon) do not levy a statewide sales tax
I took this as meaning that it was 10~15% cheaper than surrounding countries/territories due to no sales tax, hence being used to fuel black market all around SEA: a 5% margin on an iphone obtained in HK would still be cheaper for the final Japanese buyer than a "home-bought" iPhone (8% VAT).
>and everywhere else had it more expensive.
Once you correct for VAT and currency, you'll find a lot of foreign iphone sales aren't really expensive. USA pricing does not include taxes and the dollar is fairly strong now.
>Well Apple already knew certain people are buying at those prices, again why not make a product that fit those segment?
I think the larger issue here is that Apple can't maintain 2008 level pricing a decade later especially as China stops being so cheap for labor. Toss in US consumers buying on credit for 24 months and its a no-brainer we'd see price jumps. Apple isn't taking a cut on its margins, so it has to do a price increase eventually.
That's on top of the phones having expensive high quality components, NAND shortages, and the cost of rare earth elements going up every so often. Prices aren't scaling for components it seems. A high quality display in 2017 isn't the same price of one in 2008, plus inflation. A modern SoC now has to support HDMI, displayport, 4-8 cores, LTE, etc all come at a component cost as well as a licensing cost. Modern phones are more or less mini laptops now, so the dream of a 'simple' ARM device is long dead. We more or less have the desktop re-invented on ARM platforms and expect them to do anything from calls to word processing to 3D gaming. That's a far cry from the original iphone and its simple apps and simple OS.
Perhaps this is the old man part of me talking, but I absolutely fell in love with smartphones in the early days. My Treo was a wonder and the iPhone twice so. The simplistic aspects of it was incredible. Everything was snappy. Apps were a couple megabytes, if that. It did the minimum I needed and then some. Now, of course, that's all changed, but for a few years there I kind had the star-trek like device I always imagined. Now I'm back to a mini-desktop, lag, big complex apps, a near unusable mobile web, constant nags for reviews/notifications, etc. The only saving grace is that a lot of that is abstracted away from me as I move towards a lot of automation and voice interfaces (voice commands, google home, etc) and I simply developed lowered expectations of the mobile experience.
Once you correct for VAT and currency, you'll find a lot of foreign iphone sales aren't really expensive. USA pricing does not include taxes and the dollar is fairly strong now.
>Well Apple already knew certain people are buying at those prices, again why not make a product that fit those segment?
I think the larger issue here is that Apple can't maintain 2008 level pricing a decade later especially as China stops being so cheap for labor. Toss in US consumers buying on credit for 24 months and its a no-brainer we'd see price jumps. Apple isn't taking a cut on its margins, so it has to do a price increase eventually.
That's on top of the phones having expensive high quality components, NAND shortages, and the cost of rare earth elements going up every so often. Prices aren't scaling for components it seems. A high quality display in 2017 isn't the same price of one in 2008, plus inflation. A modern SoC now has to support HDMI, displayport, 4-8 cores, LTE, etc all come at a component cost as well as a licensing cost. Modern phones are more or less mini laptops now, so the dream of a 'simple' ARM device is long dead. We more or less have the desktop re-invented on ARM platforms and expect them to do anything from calls to word processing to 3D gaming. That's a far cry from the original iphone and its simple apps and simple OS.
Perhaps this is the old man part of me talking, but I absolutely fell in love with smartphones in the early days. My Treo was a wonder and the iPhone twice so. The simplistic aspects of it was incredible. Everything was snappy. Apps were a couple megabytes, if that. It did the minimum I needed and then some. Now, of course, that's all changed, but for a few years there I kind had the star-trek like device I always imagined. Now I'm back to a mini-desktop, lag, big complex apps, a near unusable mobile web, constant nags for reviews/notifications, etc. The only saving grace is that a lot of that is abstracted away from me as I move towards a lot of automation and voice interfaces (voice commands, google home, etc) and I simply developed lowered expectations of the mobile experience.
Another way to look at this is that everywhere else in the world that iPhone will cost $1500-$2000 (depending on version). Will those people still be willing to pay that much for it?
> Around iPhone 5 Apple started to put up additional $100 USD to ALL iPhone price in HK, as a way to combat the black market trading,
This post is informative, but can I suggest that we not adopt the "black market" nomenclature for cases where people buy hardware in one location, and then re-sell it?
Companies like Apple may brand this a "black market", but that implies that companies have a right to perform perfect price discrimination across the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination
I suggest we reserve the phrase "black market" for cases where contraband is being exchanged, or for cases where items were obtained through crime (e.g. the sale of stolen goods).
This post is informative, but can I suggest that we not adopt the "black market" nomenclature for cases where people buy hardware in one location, and then re-sell it?
Companies like Apple may brand this a "black market", but that implies that companies have a right to perform perfect price discrimination across the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination
I suggest we reserve the phrase "black market" for cases where contraband is being exchanged, or for cases where items were obtained through crime (e.g. the sale of stolen goods).
I would say "black market" is fair if any part of obtaining and reselling the device is illegal. For example, in the early 80s there were US tariffs on RAM chips from Japan, if I recall correctly (I might have the country wrong). But some companies found they could buy in Japan, move them to another country, and then import them into the US via this other country without the tariff. It was illegal because they were still manufactured in Japan. When the government found out, those importers got in trouble. I would count those as black market since they were being brought into the country illegally.
Is that the case we're talking about here? Buy in HK with no taxes, then sell in another country without paying the taxes? If so, that still sounds "black market" to me. I'd think you'd have to pay the taxes in the country of sale regardless of where you obtained the device. If that's not what we're talking about, then I agree it's probably not fair to label them "black market."
Is that the case we're talking about here? Buy in HK with no taxes, then sell in another country without paying the taxes? If so, that still sounds "black market" to me. I'd think you'd have to pay the taxes in the country of sale regardless of where you obtained the device. If that's not what we're talking about, then I agree it's probably not fair to label them "black market."
True. I spent around $1000 for my iPhone few months back. This was for the 32GB one and it was on special.Prices for the 128GB were just ridiculous. I was a bit surprised when I saw headline of this article because we have been paying over $1000 for ages now.
For a while they were cheaper in Japan with sales tax than in the US without tax.
The sticky price structure of Apple was severely undercut by the price of the yen. They fixed it now, though.
The sticky price structure of Apple was severely undercut by the price of the yen. They fixed it now, though.
Everywhere else had it more expensive, but everywhere else IPhone are... well not niche, but definitely way less pervasive
> US has the cheapest iPhone
It is interesting to note among Developed countries, the US has the cheapest everything.
Cars, computers, building materials, clothes, TVs. You name it, it is cheapest in the USA.
It is interesting to note this is because people in the US have much less disposable income than people in other developed countries. Companies can charge higher prices in other developed countries because people have enough money to pay it, but they can't in the US.
It is interesting to note among Developed countries, the US has the cheapest everything.
Cars, computers, building materials, clothes, TVs. You name it, it is cheapest in the USA.
It is interesting to note this is because people in the US have much less disposable income than people in other developed countries. Companies can charge higher prices in other developed countries because people have enough money to pay it, but they can't in the US.
> people in the US have much less disposable income than people in other developed countries
Is this true? I always heard it was the other way around:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets-economy/090616/...
And median: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income
Is this true? I always heard it was the other way around:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets-economy/090616/...
And median: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income
[deleted]
>"It is interesting to note this is because people in the US have much less disposable income than people in other developed countries"
I am curious did you just make this up? This is a completely bogus statement. The US is actually amongst highest per capita disposable income countries. See:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets-economy/090616/...
https://www.currencyfair.com/blog/which-country-has-highest-...
I am curious did you just make this up? This is a completely bogus statement. The US is actually amongst highest per capita disposable income countries. See:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets-economy/090616/...
https://www.currencyfair.com/blog/which-country-has-highest-...
That's why the iPhone is cheaper in Thailand and Korea where the median and mean incomes are lower .... Oh wait, it isn't.
Median income Thai and Korean people don't buy iPhones.
This is actually a) not true and b) not relevant to the original argument. I was amazed by how many people I met in Thailand and Korea who were struggling to meet $500 rent that had iPhones. More importantly, the original post argued that price of iPhone was directly correlated with disposable income.
Are those people with iPhones in Korea and Thailand buying on installment or paying by the month/renting the phones instead of buying?
Really? To me it seems like the US has a higher disposable income per household (after taxes) [1]:
US ~41k, Switzerland ~36k, France ~30k and Germany ~32k
[1]: http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/income/
US ~41k, Switzerland ~36k, France ~30k and Germany ~32k
[1]: http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/income/
In Argentina and Brazil taxes are so high that it's often cheaper to travel to the US just to buy a laptop like a MBP (for instance, the cheapest touch bar model is about $3k USD). And to give some perspective: the average salary over there is ~10 times lower than here in the US.
I would say it's the distribution that matters. https://data.oecd.org/chart/4VMU
"It is interesting to note this is because people in the US have much less disposable income than people in other developed countries."
Is this a commonly known thing? First I've heard it. I would have figured it would be the opposite given our overall tax rate compared to somewhere like Sweden is infinitesimally smaller. Can you point to some analysis/citations for this?
It does seem to make sense in my mind as, anecdotally, when I was in Germany I noticed a large number of high end Audis and BMWs. Cars that are $80k in the US would be well over $100k in Germany. (This is perhaps an oversimplification of the situation given that there are a great deal more factors involved in the pricing of German-made cars within Germany vs. selling the same cars in a much more competitive foreign market like the US'.)
Is this a commonly known thing? First I've heard it. I would have figured it would be the opposite given our overall tax rate compared to somewhere like Sweden is infinitesimally smaller. Can you point to some analysis/citations for this?
It does seem to make sense in my mind as, anecdotally, when I was in Germany I noticed a large number of high end Audis and BMWs. Cars that are $80k in the US would be well over $100k in Germany. (This is perhaps an oversimplification of the situation given that there are a great deal more factors involved in the pricing of German-made cars within Germany vs. selling the same cars in a much more competitive foreign market like the US'.)
The tax rate is lower, but the places charging those taxes do generally use them for providing public services that individuals would be paying for directly or indirectly, so that likely offsets part of it.
Past there, I'd suspect that it comes down to society as a whole having a more positive outcome, while individuals potentially having slightly worse outcomes. If we lower everyone's income in taxes but reinvest that money in healthcare and mental health services, quality education, etc, then we lift a lot of unproductive members of society up and have them all producing for us as well. The middle class may earn slightly less, but we can basically chop the lower classes/poverty stricken individuals right out of the equation - Sweden has 1% of the population below the poverty line, while the US has 15% - that's going to skew the average upward quite a bit.
Past there, I'd suspect that it comes down to society as a whole having a more positive outcome, while individuals potentially having slightly worse outcomes. If we lower everyone's income in taxes but reinvest that money in healthcare and mental health services, quality education, etc, then we lift a lot of unproductive members of society up and have them all producing for us as well. The middle class may earn slightly less, but we can basically chop the lower classes/poverty stricken individuals right out of the equation - Sweden has 1% of the population below the poverty line, while the US has 15% - that's going to skew the average upward quite a bit.
It's not true at all. Things are cheaper in the US because it doesn't have high sales taxes and the huge order sizes means its cheaper
Typical US sales tax of 0-6% versus typical European VAT of 20-25% certainly makes a big difference too.
The funny thing with taxes is that in the end, if you pay the government or a company it makes no difference. However, if you pay the government they invest it in public schools, streets, health-care. Companies benefit the shareholder.
Those goods are also cheaper than in most developing countries as well. As in, the pair of Levi's that cost you $40 in Amazon will run you much higher in developing countries. Sure, you can get cheaper jeans from other local brands, but Levi's is seen as premium quality
are you including VAT in European prices? Any comparison needs to be worked back to price before taxes.
> "And in terms of iPhones / Population / Apple Store, the US has it most. While in Japan 60% of the Smartphone are iPhone ( i.e Higher the US usage ) they have less then 10 Apple Stores."
pet peeve of mine is then vs than.
pet peeve of mine is then vs than.
This reminds me of the arguments about whether popular bands should raise ticket prices on the one hand, or create the conditions for ticket scalpers on the other.
Let's say Apple wants to be as innovative in hardware as a company like Essential – and therefore use components or manufacturing processes that aren't available at the scale of tens of millions per quarter. What should Apple do?
* Not innovate. Leave this for smaller companies; wait for the price to come down. Risk: lose market, engineers, and ability to build competence, to other companies.
* Release in limited supply at a low price; leave the surplus to rent seekers (scalpers). Risk: Leaves money on the table; insert middleman in relationship between Apple and (ultimate) customers.
* Release in limited supply at a low price; attempt to control scalping by limiting sales per customer and locking phones to the original purchaser. Risk: Complicated mechanism that people will hate.
* Charge a higher price, in order to set demand to supply. Risk: Bad image; magnifies effects of wealth inequality.
Let's say Apple wants to be as innovative in hardware as a company like Essential – and therefore use components or manufacturing processes that aren't available at the scale of tens of millions per quarter. What should Apple do?
* Not innovate. Leave this for smaller companies; wait for the price to come down. Risk: lose market, engineers, and ability to build competence, to other companies.
* Release in limited supply at a low price; leave the surplus to rent seekers (scalpers). Risk: Leaves money on the table; insert middleman in relationship between Apple and (ultimate) customers.
* Release in limited supply at a low price; attempt to control scalping by limiting sales per customer and locking phones to the original purchaser. Risk: Complicated mechanism that people will hate.
* Charge a higher price, in order to set demand to supply. Risk: Bad image; magnifies effects of wealth inequality.
An interesting analysis in general; though just for this specific case, this phone is more a different niche, than purely better. It's larger and heavier.
There are technologies, like process nodes, that improve on several dimensions, and while I'm sure the military has access to "future" process nodea, the yields are just so dramatically low (and also therefore dramatically more expensive), that it's not really feasible for a mainstream product.
The adgances it will have will be much less profound: more CPU cores, more GPU cores, maybe higher clocking, and a heavier battery to power it all. So, it's simply an attempt to broaden the product line, like the "plus" and (unsuccessful) "C" models.
Also, given that Apple sold a $10,000+ watch, they probably don't mind charging more. Though, it'll be priced to sell (which that watch didn't).
However, given that phones have overshot most people's needs (e.g. 5s iPhones are still selling well), Apple will soon need a killer app that requires all that power... like AR. Unfortunately, there's no indication that AR is a killer app. Who knows, maybe Apple will change that.
There are technologies, like process nodes, that improve on several dimensions, and while I'm sure the military has access to "future" process nodea, the yields are just so dramatically low (and also therefore dramatically more expensive), that it's not really feasible for a mainstream product.
The adgances it will have will be much less profound: more CPU cores, more GPU cores, maybe higher clocking, and a heavier battery to power it all. So, it's simply an attempt to broaden the product line, like the "plus" and (unsuccessful) "C" models.
Also, given that Apple sold a $10,000+ watch, they probably don't mind charging more. Though, it'll be priced to sell (which that watch didn't).
However, given that phones have overshot most people's needs (e.g. 5s iPhones are still selling well), Apple will soon need a killer app that requires all that power... like AR. Unfortunately, there's no indication that AR is a killer app. Who knows, maybe Apple will change that.
* Sell previous years iPhones at competitive prices
In India, the SE was recently on sale for Rs. 18500 after discounts and cashbacks are accounted for... with budget alternatives.
In India, the SE was recently on sale for Rs. 18500 after discounts and cashbacks are accounted for... with budget alternatives.
Couldn't they also invest some of their massive cash reserves into production and R&D?
Yes but I don't see how that would affect their pricing strategy?
Cash reserves make it easier for them to make a riskier play into the luxury market. But in the long-run the reserve is only a temporary fallback not a sustainable model.
Pushing the price up makes it easier to play with the price margins and add more expensive parts.
It could also be fueled by the output of their R&D but they could also see the value proposition they offer as justifying a higher price from entirely non-functional aspects (ie non-software/hardware innovation), just merely the emotional draw of the product via design and branding. The measure is whether people still want the product as much rather than whether it does x & y better than the competitors.
People tend to discount the utility of emotional appeal and the connection people have to the products they use daily. Instead focusing on CPU speeds or raw feature comparisons.
Cash reserves make it easier for them to make a riskier play into the luxury market. But in the long-run the reserve is only a temporary fallback not a sustainable model.
Pushing the price up makes it easier to play with the price margins and add more expensive parts.
It could also be fueled by the output of their R&D but they could also see the value proposition they offer as justifying a higher price from entirely non-functional aspects (ie non-software/hardware innovation), just merely the emotional draw of the product via design and branding. The measure is whether people still want the product as much rather than whether it does x & y better than the competitors.
People tend to discount the utility of emotional appeal and the connection people have to the products they use daily. Instead focusing on CPU speeds or raw feature comparisons.
A lot of people just get the best iphone every 24 months (e.g. rich people, or people who have a generous smartphone policy at work). Having a model that gets another couple of hundred bucks from those people is pretty clever I think.
This is basically the S-class phone (To make a car analogy, because that's what we do). The S-class Mercedes costs twice as much as the "Normal" E-class, and each time they launch a new model, it contains the most exotic and expensive new gadgets. It's sold to the very price insensitive. This offloads a lot of the R&D costs of these technical gadgets to the S-class customers. The following year, their E-class (Which is upscale but not a super luxury car) sees most of those S-class features at a much lower price point.
I'm suspecting this is what will happen with a new, expensive iPhone. It will be a testing ground for new features, and if the features work they will be introduced at much lower risk and cost to 10x the number of customers next year. This year it's oled screens, facial recognition etc.
This is basically the S-class phone (To make a car analogy, because that's what we do). The S-class Mercedes costs twice as much as the "Normal" E-class, and each time they launch a new model, it contains the most exotic and expensive new gadgets. It's sold to the very price insensitive. This offloads a lot of the R&D costs of these technical gadgets to the S-class customers. The following year, their E-class (Which is upscale but not a super luxury car) sees most of those S-class features at a much lower price point.
I'm suspecting this is what will happen with a new, expensive iPhone. It will be a testing ground for new features, and if the features work they will be introduced at much lower risk and cost to 10x the number of customers next year. This year it's oled screens, facial recognition etc.
I'm totally one of those people. I buy myself the best iPhone, every single year. But your car analogy, while popular, isn't really that illustrative.
Most of my friends have a nicer, more expensive, car than I do. Buying a previous-year showroom-demo Nissan SUV from the dealer saved me something like $20,000, compared to buying a Lexus or Audi, even one a few years old.
That's two decades of having the best phone. I'm not generally price insensitive. I'm specifically price-insensitive about devices that I spend a huge amount of time using, namely (in my case) my smartphone and computers.
And those things are also objectively way cheaper than luxury cars, so they aren't really comparable. A lot more people can decide to go high-end than can with cars, For instance, I noticed my housekeeper, a nice old lady who works for $15 an hour cash, also rocks a 256GB iPhone 7 Plus just like I do, and she doesn't even have a car.
Most of my friends have a nicer, more expensive, car than I do. Buying a previous-year showroom-demo Nissan SUV from the dealer saved me something like $20,000, compared to buying a Lexus or Audi, even one a few years old.
That's two decades of having the best phone. I'm not generally price insensitive. I'm specifically price-insensitive about devices that I spend a huge amount of time using, namely (in my case) my smartphone and computers.
And those things are also objectively way cheaper than luxury cars, so they aren't really comparable. A lot more people can decide to go high-end than can with cars, For instance, I noticed my housekeeper, a nice old lady who works for $15 an hour cash, also rocks a 256GB iPhone 7 Plus just like I do, and she doesn't even have a car.
The OP isn't saying that the S Class customer is the same as the super expensive iPhone customer, just that is it analogous. For it to work you should normalise/scale by the overall number of devices/cars sold.
Maybe you don't drive that much? I appreciate the luxury of the new Audi A4 especially when I'm on a 3-4 hour driving route.
If you don't drive much, try smaller cars: A1, Mini-cooper, BMW series 1, etc...
If you don't drive much, try smaller cars: A1, Mini-cooper, BMW series 1, etc...
Common pricing strategy is to have 3 price points:
1. a cheap stripper model used to bring people into the showroom
2. an expensive deluxe model with every bell and whistle. It's primary purpose is to frame the next one as being affordable:
3. the mid-price mid-range one you're expected to buy.
Of course, the price-is-no-object people will buy (2) anyway, and that's just extra gravy.
You'll see this technique used across all sorts of product lines.
1. a cheap stripper model used to bring people into the showroom
2. an expensive deluxe model with every bell and whistle. It's primary purpose is to frame the next one as being affordable:
3. the mid-price mid-range one you're expected to buy.
Of course, the price-is-no-object people will buy (2) anyway, and that's just extra gravy.
You'll see this technique used across all sorts of product lines.
Also called price anchoring [0] in marketing.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring
indeed; for those who may not be familiar, see 'behavioral economics' [0] for the ways that known quirks in human reasoning can be used to game consumers. don't buy a house without learning about it.
there are two great books I recommend for those interested: predictably irrational [1] and the upside of irrationality [2]. personally, I think the first is better than the second as a layman's introduction to it.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Predictably-Irrational-Revised-Expand...
[2] https://www.amazon.com/Upside-Irrationality-Unexpected-Benef...
there are two great books I recommend for those interested: predictably irrational [1] and the upside of irrationality [2]. personally, I think the first is better than the second as a layman's introduction to it.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Predictably-Irrational-Revised-Expand...
[2] https://www.amazon.com/Upside-Irrationality-Unexpected-Benef...
you mentioned real estate - do you know of any books/articles that delve into behavioral economics from a homebuyer's perspective?
As an extension, I suspect that the extreme initial price reports (base model iPhone X at $1300 at one point?) are another form of anchoring. Apple is likely intentionally desensitizing people to the price.
My understanding was the USD $1K mark was for the cheapest. If they were introducing a luxury version I wouldn't be so upset.
I thought the rumor-mill had Apple introducing two phones tomorrow - the 7 replacement AND the expensive phone. The naming conjecture has muddled the discussion a but, I think.
I see. I guess I was confused by this:
(FTA:) "The company will also enter new territory on price: The latest phone will start at about $1,000, compared with the $769 minimum for its current top phone, the iPhone 7 Plus."
So they are comparing 'top' to 'top' here. Got it.
(FTA:) "The company will also enter new territory on price: The latest phone will start at about $1,000, compared with the $769 minimum for its current top phone, the iPhone 7 Plus."
So they are comparing 'top' to 'top' here. Got it.
Yeah, I think that's just comparing current top to new top.
My guess is we get a 7 replacement (named 7S or 8) and an ultra-premium (named 8 or iPhone Edition).
Or, maybe not, and there is no real 7 replacement. Just the ultra-premium, and the 7 stays on as the mid-level, maybe with $100 price reduction (and the 6S is retired).
My guess is we get a 7 replacement (named 7S or 8) and an ultra-premium (named 8 or iPhone Edition).
Or, maybe not, and there is no real 7 replacement. Just the ultra-premium, and the 7 stays on as the mid-level, maybe with $100 price reduction (and the 6S is retired).
Many people spend more time on their phone than their PC. So, 1,000$ is not an unreasonable price if it's noticeably better. It's like spending 200+$ on a pair of shoes, they don't need to be that much better fit to be worth it.
I mean 1,000$ seems bad, but that can translate to under 30 cents an hour if you're spending 4 hours a day on your phone.
I mean 1,000$ seems bad, but that can translate to under 30 cents an hour if you're spending 4 hours a day on your phone.
But unlike a PC - though they’re getting there - phones and the ecosystems on them are becoming more fine-tuned to extract more money from you. App suggestions, Apple Pay, IAPs and who knows what they will come up with in the next few years.
You may look at spending $$$ on a keyboard or chair that you use a lot as a similar purchase, but they are far less likely to dangle carrots in-front of you to take more of your money and give you questionable value in return.
You may look at spending $$$ on a keyboard or chair that you use a lot as a similar purchase, but they are far less likely to dangle carrots in-front of you to take more of your money and give you questionable value in return.
Plus a phone has a much shorter life, batteries you can't change on your own, accidental destruction, a laptop will last longer than a phone.
Except it's really easy to accidentally destroy or lose a phone. That's the reason I don't buy expensive phones anymore, because I'll probably just drop it.
You can buy insurance, assuming your not losing several phones a year that should not be an issue.
PS: Dropping a phone should not destroy it. Over the last 20 years I have never used a case and shattered exactly one screen when fumbling it onto concrete. The new screen was not that expensive.
PS: Dropping a phone should not destroy it. Over the last 20 years I have never used a case and shattered exactly one screen when fumbling it onto concrete. The new screen was not that expensive.
That's another cost. So on top of the thousand dollar phone I now have to buy ~$150+ in cases (which are dubiously effective) and insurance.
Instead I buy a ~$200 phone (which is just as good to me than a $1,000 phone) and when that one breaks I get another ~$200 phone.
I don't care about a broken screen though, if the screen cracks then I'll just use it until the phone isn't functional anymore.
Instead I buy a ~$200 phone (which is just as good to me than a $1,000 phone) and when that one breaks I get another ~$200 phone.
I don't care about a broken screen though, if the screen cracks then I'll just use it until the phone isn't functional anymore.
Realistically you can just wait like 3-5 months until the price goes down a bit. Got this 128gb iPhone 7 (free unlock from att) for $570 + $10 otterbox deal from amazon + $3 screen protector + sprint 1 year "free" service for $4/mo. So that's 631$ for an iPhone and a year of service..
These phones really aren't that expensive if you look for a deal.
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Apple-iPhone-7-128GB-AT-T-Refurbi...
These phones really aren't that expensive if you look for a deal.
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Apple-iPhone-7-128GB-AT-T-Refurbi...
How can you spend $150+ in cases?
It was an off the cuff guess on what the average person would spend on a "military grade case"+insurance. I based it on the fact that I know the high end cases can sell for upward of $100. Apparently there are cheaper options [1] though.
[1] https://www.thrillist.com/tech/best-military-grade-iphone-ca...
[1] https://www.thrillist.com/tech/best-military-grade-iphone-ca...
I've used a case with almost every phone and shattered 4 screens in the last 4 years.
If you bought your phone with a credit card, check to see if it offers any kind of purchase protection. I dropped my phone about a month after I had, called the credit card company and they refunded me almost instantly. No forms to fill out, nothing to mail in.
Purchase protection usually only lasts 30-90 days.
> Except it's really easy to accidentally destroy or lose a phone.
In 20 years of owning different mobile phones, I've never accidentally destroyed or lost one. Maybe you are just clumsy or careless.
In 20 years of owning different mobile phones, I've never accidentally destroyed or lost one. Maybe you are just clumsy or careless.
falsedan(1)
Can't you buy an insurance for that?
Or search for "military grade phone cover".
Or search for "military grade phone cover".
[deleted]
It's easier to buy a reasonably priced smartphone and a cheap cover then insuring a very pricey one
Same for the car, many people even leave theirs on public sidewalks!
> So, 1,000$ is not an unreasonable price if it's noticeably better.
But if $500 gets you 90% of the way there, is that last $500 really worth it? Same with shoes - I regularly spend less than $100 on my shoes and find that they are perfectly comfortable, last a long time, and fit all my needs. 0 complaints. Spending another $100 might give me a better experience (at the very least it might make me feel happier when I put them on the first time), but the returns are so low that it isn't worth it.
These days, the money bar for a "good enough" smartphone is very very low.
But if $500 gets you 90% of the way there, is that last $500 really worth it? Same with shoes - I regularly spend less than $100 on my shoes and find that they are perfectly comfortable, last a long time, and fit all my needs. 0 complaints. Spending another $100 might give me a better experience (at the very least it might make me feel happier when I put them on the first time), but the returns are so low that it isn't worth it.
These days, the money bar for a "good enough" smartphone is very very low.
[deleted]
so you spend also excessive amount of money on water because you drink it several times a day?
there is objectively no reason to spend more than 200 Euro on a smartphone - except for attempting to inflate one's ego.
there is objectively no reason to spend more than 200 Euro on a smartphone - except for attempting to inflate one's ego.
I work at a keyboard 8h per day, so I happily pay $100 for a keyboard that is nice, even though I could get one for $20.
Same with the phone. Even if it's just some minor improvement I use it so much that it's worth it.
Also it depends on what you use it for. If you use it for web browsing/messaging/email/phone calls then most phones will do. But other features such as the camera might be very dependent on price. Adding $100 to the price doesn't add much to the ability to make calls, but photos actually get noticably better with each dollar still.
Also it depends on what you use it for. If you use it for web browsing/messaging/email/phone calls then most phones will do. But other features such as the camera might be very dependent on price. Adding $100 to the price doesn't add much to the ability to make calls, but photos actually get noticably better with each dollar still.
But a nice keyboard will last more than a decade. A smartphone will not.
Except a good keyboard really makes the difference, an iPhone is worse in many ways from my Xiaomi Mi5, that costed 200 euros.
For example you can't use the iPhone as an usb disk.
For example you can't use the iPhone as an usb disk.
I don't know about you, but I most certainly can use my iPhone as a USB disk.
To clarify, he means he can both use it as a mass storage device on any platform, as well as it can be used boot an ISO if needed.
An iPhone can do neither of those things.
An iPhone can do neither of those things.
> An iPhone can do neither of those things.
That's simply not true, an "iPhone" most certainly can, just not with "stock iOS". Google "roqyUSB7" if you don't believe me.
That's simply not true, an "iPhone" most certainly can, just not with "stock iOS". Google "roqyUSB7" if you don't believe me.
Right, and an iPhone can get you to the grocery store once you plug a car into it's charging port.
There are tons of advantages to an Android phone (I know, as I own a bunch of them), why do you and the previous posters resort to childish antics rather than sticking to the actual facts which are more the sufficient here to make your point?
> but I most certainly can use my iPhone as a USB disk.
No, you can't.
Try to connect your iPhone to the USB port of your smart TV and see what happens.
HINT: nothing
No, you can't.
Try to connect your iPhone to the USB port of your smart TV and see what happens.
HINT: nothing
What makes a keyboard better in your opinion? I once bought a 100$ mechanical keynoard and ended up going back to my 10$ keyboard because it was familiar
I am not sure if the difference between keyboards is that price dependant
I am not sure if the difference between keyboards is that price dependant
Better is mostly subjective. Even with mechanical keyboards, people like different types of switches so some will say their brown keys are better than blue keys or their white keys are better than red keys. Most of it is feeling. Different key types require different amounts of force and give different amounts of feedback.
Your $10 keyboard was better for you because you were more comfortable on it. My tenkeyless blue switch keyboard at home is nice, but I don't think it has much of an effect compared the Apple keyboard that I use at work.
Disclaimer: In the world of mechanical keyboards there are certainly keyboards that are better than others. That can't be said when comparing switch types, but within a certain switch type there are switches that are manufactured better than others. Here's a blog post with gifs that show the different switches: http://www.keyboardco.com/blog/index.php/2012/12/an-introduc...
Your $10 keyboard was better for you because you were more comfortable on it. My tenkeyless blue switch keyboard at home is nice, but I don't think it has much of an effect compared the Apple keyboard that I use at work.
Disclaimer: In the world of mechanical keyboards there are certainly keyboards that are better than others. That can't be said when comparing switch types, but within a certain switch type there are switches that are manufactured better than others. Here's a blog post with gifs that show the different switches: http://www.keyboardco.com/blog/index.php/2012/12/an-introduc...
A lot of people (including myself) like long-throw clicky keyboards given the choice. However, especially with the wholesale shift to laptops, they're far less familiar to people than they once were. I do like my mechanical keyboards but I admit that I use other keyboards so much of the time that I don't feel I "have" to use them like I once did. (And, indeed, I may have to adjust a little if I haven't used them in a while.)
There are multiple laptop models on the narket with mechanical keyboards, from Razer, Acer, Asus, etc.
Mechanical keyboards are objectively bettet in that all top competative touch typists use them.
Mechanical keyboards are objectively bettet in that all top competative touch typists use them.
> What makes a keyboard better in your opinion?
In my case it reduces wrist fatigue
I'm 40, being using computers for 35 years now
A good keyboard literally makes my life better
My point is that a good keyboard can make the difference, while an "iPhone only" feature most probably won't
In my case it reduces wrist fatigue
I'm 40, being using computers for 35 years now
A good keyboard literally makes my life better
My point is that a good keyboard can make the difference, while an "iPhone only" feature most probably won't
This is not limited to iPhones, you can buy very nice Android phones that are meaningful upgrades vs a Xiaomi Mi5.
Sure!
I tend to buy top of the line devices given a price range.
Mi5 was the flagship phone for Xiaomi when I bought it
I also was a owner of previous Xiaomi products and I wanted to test the new one
My point is that iPhone is a very limited platform
And its value for money is very low
I tend to buy top of the line devices given a price range.
Mi5 was the flagship phone for Xiaomi when I bought it
I also was a owner of previous Xiaomi products and I wanted to test the new one
My point is that iPhone is a very limited platform
And its value for money is very low
> so you spend also excessive amount of money on water because you drink it several times a day?
I sure do, because I prefer the quality control and availability of municipally-supplied mains rather than sinking a well in my back yard.
Your point about conspicuous consumption is pretty unfocused. Should everyone use the same laptop, do the same job, be paid the same rate, lest be accused of propertarian tendencies?
I sure do, because I prefer the quality control and availability of municipally-supplied mains rather than sinking a well in my back yard.
Your point about conspicuous consumption is pretty unfocused. Should everyone use the same laptop, do the same job, be paid the same rate, lest be accused of propertarian tendencies?
> municipally-supplied mains
I don't know where you live but here in Germany this water source is pretty cheap while of high quality. So this would rather be an example of pragmatic spending behaviour.
A $1000 smartphone would rather correspond to vanilla-flavored water filtered in a space ship using a high-tech-crystal-structure ...
> Should everyone use the same laptop, do the same job, be paid the same rate, lest be accused of propertarians tendencies?
Exactly - you are identifying yourself with those possessions. In my experience people with such materialist life philosophy are tedious and annoying.
I don't know where you live but here in Germany this water source is pretty cheap while of high quality. So this would rather be an example of pragmatic spending behaviour.
A $1000 smartphone would rather correspond to vanilla-flavored water filtered in a space ship using a high-tech-crystal-structure ...
> Should everyone use the same laptop, do the same job, be paid the same rate, lest be accused of propertarians tendencies?
Exactly - you are identifying yourself with those possessions. In my experience people with such materialist life philosophy are tedious and annoying.
Your water example is ill conceived because bottled water often considered a reasonable purchase in bulk yet it is also a vastly larger price increase vs just a 5x on a phone.
Bottled water is basically the same thing just in slightly more convenient form yet it's ~1000x as expensive. Because it's not the relative price that's important it's the price relative to the benifit.
Bottled water is basically the same thing just in slightly more convenient form yet it's ~1000x as expensive. Because it's not the relative price that's important it's the price relative to the benifit.
Bad example. People usually drill wells because there isn't a municipal source available. Municipal water is not a luxury good that you pay a premium for. Indeed, wells are likely to end up higher cost because of drilling, failures, etc.
Better example is drinking bottled water rather than tap water. Which many people do but is IMO a total waste of money. To say nothing of environmentally wasteful.
Better example is drinking bottled water rather than tap water. Which many people do but is IMO a total waste of money. To say nothing of environmentally wasteful.
> Bad example
I work with the material I get given.
I work with the material I get given.
> so you spend also excessive amount of money on water because you drink it several times a day?
That's literally the mineral water industry. So yes, lots of people do!
That's literally the mineral water industry. So yes, lots of people do!
It's not like your phone vanishes after a new model comes out. A year old iPhone can be sold for a shockingly high amount of money (in no small part because--unlike 200 Euro smartphones--they are provided software updates for years to come). You can buy a new iPhone every year while selling your previous one and stay cutting edge for not too much money.
You are confusing price insensitivity. If the iPhone is a better phone, I'll just buy it and save myself the hassle of dealing with the stupid android one.
But getting to the water point: Yes, people spend too little on the water they drink. They should be more careful but generally speaking it is not that serious. (ie: Focusing on quitting smoking will have more significant health improvement)
But getting to the water point: Yes, people spend too little on the water they drink. They should be more careful but generally speaking it is not that serious. (ie: Focusing on quitting smoking will have more significant health improvement)
for apps/general phone use 200 Euro phone is fine, but it will have quite a mediocre camera. For many camera on the phone is really important (let's say it's the only camera you have on you most of the time you spend with your little kids), and so you have to avoid cheapo phones that perfectly satisfactory for any other needs (texting/emails/maps/web etc (and phone calls if someone still doing it))
I also know a guy who made his living for many years repairing and reselling iPhones, who simply buys the top of the line as soon as it comes out and resells the old one to pay for it, at as close to full price as he can get away with. Since he always gets the most specc'd out phone available, treats it very carefully, always inside an otterbox, and is a pretty decent salesman, he usually gets his price. He also claims it as a tax write-off - business expense.
In that way I think he ends up paying maybe $200 every other year for his new phone. In the last 6 years I've spent WAY more than that on the Androids I used to get and break/lose every year or so. I've finally seen the light and got an iPhone myself and plan to adopt the same strategy.
In that way I think he ends up paying maybe $200 every other year for his new phone. In the last 6 years I've spent WAY more than that on the Androids I used to get and break/lose every year or so. I've finally seen the light and got an iPhone myself and plan to adopt the same strategy.
A good strategy, however he is not really the owner of the phone. He is essentially renting it from the next buyer.
One consequence is that he has no option but treat is carefully, use a case, a screen protector, etc.. which is kind of ironic considering how much effort is put on the exterior design of the phone.
Selling the phone also has a non-zero cost : you have to find a buyer and make the transaction. In that guy's case, when he sells his own iPhone, he doesn't sell something else from his shop. And he has the advantage of being an experienced salesman and having a shop.
As for the tax write-off, sure, but I suppose that if you write off your phone as a business expense, you also need to declare the sale as business income. I doubt it is as straightforward as one may think. That guy, who is presumably a business owner, probably has an accountant to deal with such issues.
What I am trying to say is that that guy strategy probably works very well for him but how it will work for you is another story.
One consequence is that he has no option but treat is carefully, use a case, a screen protector, etc.. which is kind of ironic considering how much effort is put on the exterior design of the phone.
Selling the phone also has a non-zero cost : you have to find a buyer and make the transaction. In that guy's case, when he sells his own iPhone, he doesn't sell something else from his shop. And he has the advantage of being an experienced salesman and having a shop.
As for the tax write-off, sure, but I suppose that if you write off your phone as a business expense, you also need to declare the sale as business income. I doubt it is as straightforward as one may think. That guy, who is presumably a business owner, probably has an accountant to deal with such issues.
What I am trying to say is that that guy strategy probably works very well for him but how it will work for you is another story.
> One consequence is that he has no option but treat is carefully, use a case, a screen protector, etc.. which is kind of ironic considering how much effort is put on the exterior design of the phone.
Yeah, but I do that too regardless of whether I'm planning to resell it, because cracked screens are a pain in the ass and that applies to any phone.
> Selling the phone also has a non-zero cost : you have to find a buyer and make the transaction. In that guy's case, when he sells his own iPhone, he doesn't sell something else from his shop. And he has the advantage of being an experienced salesman and having a shop.
He actually just sells them on facebook. He does have a shop, but he's not in the iPhone business anymore - he has a car dealership. Like I said, good salesman! He's the most active facebook user I've ever encountered, so he may be paying his "shop" rent that way.
I suspect the strategy won't work quite as well for me - but I think I can expect to pay the same $2-400 every 1-2 years that I have been paying, plus I get an iPhone instead of a cheap Android. I didn't think it would win me over, but it has.
Yeah, but I do that too regardless of whether I'm planning to resell it, because cracked screens are a pain in the ass and that applies to any phone.
> Selling the phone also has a non-zero cost : you have to find a buyer and make the transaction. In that guy's case, when he sells his own iPhone, he doesn't sell something else from his shop. And he has the advantage of being an experienced salesman and having a shop.
He actually just sells them on facebook. He does have a shop, but he's not in the iPhone business anymore - he has a car dealership. Like I said, good salesman! He's the most active facebook user I've ever encountered, so he may be paying his "shop" rent that way.
I suspect the strategy won't work quite as well for me - but I think I can expect to pay the same $2-400 every 1-2 years that I have been paying, plus I get an iPhone instead of a cheap Android. I didn't think it would win me over, but it has.
I, too, like to avoid cracked screens the best I can – with reasonable precaution. I'm not going to wrap an already big phone in an even bigger case to make it a bigger nuisance every single day.
(I also don't buy the hassle of using screen protectors. I do not mind micro scratches all that much because I'm not trying to protect the resale value of a consumable item. I can put it in the same pocket with keys or many other sharp items if that's what's most convenient in a given situation. There is indeed a cost at trying to preserve any carryable item in mint condition.)
(I also don't buy the hassle of using screen protectors. I do not mind micro scratches all that much because I'm not trying to protect the resale value of a consumable item. I can put it in the same pocket with keys or many other sharp items if that's what's most convenient in a given situation. There is indeed a cost at trying to preserve any carryable item in mint condition.)
> I also don't buy the hassle of using screen protectors.
They're not really for "micro scratches", though - they're for when you drop the phone or otherwise catch the front with something heavy/sharp/etc. My last two screen protectors have saved my screen from damage - considering that's £30 of outlay compared with ~£270 for a new iPhone 7 screen each time, I would say they're vital.
They're not really for "micro scratches", though - they're for when you drop the phone or otherwise catch the front with something heavy/sharp/etc. My last two screen protectors have saved my screen from damage - considering that's £30 of outlay compared with ~£270 for a new iPhone 7 screen each time, I would say they're vital.
This sort of strategy could also have a high opportunity cost in terms of one's time, depending on the value of your time. But it might make sense for someone who gets enjoyment out of the strategy itself, even if the upside is only saving a few hundred bucks.
It's similar to why I make DIY furniture for my home. While the cost of materials is lower than what I would pay for a finished piece at a furniture studio, that doesn't account for the time and effort I put into it. But for me the effort itself is a net positive that it's hard to put a price on, just like the joy of arbitraging iPhones might be for this person.
It's similar to why I make DIY furniture for my home. While the cost of materials is lower than what I would pay for a finished piece at a furniture studio, that doesn't account for the time and effort I put into it. But for me the effort itself is a net positive that it's hard to put a price on, just like the joy of arbitraging iPhones might be for this person.
> One consequence is that he has no option but treat is carefully, use a case, a screen protector, etc.. which is kind of ironic considering how much effort is put on the exterior design of the phone.
Honestly, the resale value for damaged iPhones is still pretty good. Even if the screen is cracked, you can get a few hundred dollars.
I just searched for "iPhone 7 cracked screen" on eBay and filtered by completed listings, and there are quite a few that sold in the past few days for over $300 after receiving quite a few bids.
Honestly, the resale value for damaged iPhones is still pretty good. Even if the screen is cracked, you can get a few hundred dollars.
I just searched for "iPhone 7 cracked screen" on eBay and filtered by completed listings, and there are quite a few that sold in the past few days for over $300 after receiving quite a few bids.
I always take a 2-year contract. About one week before the new iPhone launch (and, conveniently, the end of my contract term), I sell my iPhone. My 6S with 64GB went this weekend for €450, which was the asking price. Next week I won't be able to get that price since there's a new model.
I'm using a cheap, Chinese Android phone for 2 weeks every other year to bridge the gap between selling my iPhone and getting the new one. I have to say: cheapy Android phones are getting better. Sure, they're nowhere near the quality and experience of iPhones, but my Doogee Shoot 2 ($54,-) performs pretty decently and actually shoots some nice photos in daylight. I won't be converting anytime soon (show me an Android phone that performs like new after 2 years of everyday usage, without lagging) but it does make me wonder sometimes that the price difference can't really be justified...
I'm using a cheap, Chinese Android phone for 2 weeks every other year to bridge the gap between selling my iPhone and getting the new one. I have to say: cheapy Android phones are getting better. Sure, they're nowhere near the quality and experience of iPhones, but my Doogee Shoot 2 ($54,-) performs pretty decently and actually shoots some nice photos in daylight. I won't be converting anytime soon (show me an Android phone that performs like new after 2 years of everyday usage, without lagging) but it does make me wonder sometimes that the price difference can't really be justified...
> I always take a 2-year contract. About one week before the new iPhone launch (and, conveniently, the end of my contract term), I sell my iPhone. My 6S with 64GB went this weekend for €450, which was the asking price. Next week I won't be able to get that price since there's a new model.
I usually sell my iPhones and iPads after the new one has been delivered, preferably on the first weekend of the month. In my experience you won't have to expect a significant decrease in value after release. People know there's a new iPhone - it's not a surprise, even for non-tech audiences, and people will spent accordingly.
However the supply will be larger after release, no doubt, but one could argue that this applies to size of target audience as well. People will look for second hand iPhones after release.
In any case the resale value of Apple products is nothing short of amazing.
I usually sell my iPhones and iPads after the new one has been delivered, preferably on the first weekend of the month. In my experience you won't have to expect a significant decrease in value after release. People know there's a new iPhone - it's not a surprise, even for non-tech audiences, and people will spent accordingly.
However the supply will be larger after release, no doubt, but one could argue that this applies to size of target audience as well. People will look for second hand iPhones after release.
In any case the resale value of Apple products is nothing short of amazing.
I've had nexuses for the last 5 years and have been very happy and certainly not spent the sums you're alluding to.
Unfortunately the nexus is now no more, it's the Pixel which just seems like a rip-off, if I'm going to spend that kind of money I'll go back to iPhones.
Unfortunately the nexus is now no more, it's the Pixel which just seems like a rip-off, if I'm going to spend that kind of money I'll go back to iPhones.
Consider Mi A1 - it's Google's android and more than decent hardware for 200 eur.
http://www.mi.com/in/mi-a1/android-one/
http://www.mi.com/in/mi-a1/android-one/
Wow, quite impressive specs for 200 eur! Also 2 years of OS updates minimum.
Glad I'm not alone in disgust for the Pixel and mourning the loss of the Nexus line.
Even the much touted camera on the Pixel sucks. Worse, GPS is frequently off by as much as a mile from your actual location but accuracy is claimed to be <50ft, when it claims 200-1000ft accuracy is when it's actually the correct location.
Even the much touted camera on the Pixel sucks. Worse, GPS is frequently off by as much as a mile from your actual location but accuracy is claimed to be <50ft, when it claims 200-1000ft accuracy is when it's actually the correct location.
This is common with high end DSLR's too. A way to always have the latest kit for a relatively low ongoing cost.
You've got to have the folding to start the ball rolling in the first place though.
You've got to have the folding to start the ball rolling in the first place though.
You could save even more money by getting a cheaper Android phone and treating it just as carefully. The problem you described has nothing to do with the brand.
The resale value of a 2 year old Android phone is much lower that a 2 year old iPhone, even it spent those two years sealed in its original box.
I don't think anyone sane would buy a two year old android, that would probably push you back to 5.1 for most phones.
I bought an LG G3 for $80. It's running Android 7 and still getting security updates. It will probably be a couple years before it is out of date.
Yep, i sold an iPhone 6 plus 16gb for $550 yesterday. I couldn't believe it. It was just the asking price to start the haggle. Try get more than $50 for a 3 year old samsung.
That is actually incredible. I won't get more than 275GBP for my 128GB!
Where did you sell it?
If you break/lose your phone it's your problem, dude. My Androids are lasting ~4 years each.
Of course it's my problem. I have to come up with strategies for dealing with it.
With security patches?
Well, I just saw this on Android Police:
agujeronegro
Hey, Samsung released July security patch to Samsung Galaxy S4!!! We are talking about April 27 of 2013. That's 4 years and a half! https://www.sammobile.com/firmwares/galaxy-s4/GT-I9505/NEE/d...
agujeronegro
Hey, Samsung released July security patch to Samsung Galaxy S4!!! We are talking about April 27 of 2013. That's 4 years and a half! https://www.sammobile.com/firmwares/galaxy-s4/GT-I9505/NEE/d...
My OnePlus One has Android 7.1.2 and August security patch (thanks to Paranoid Android)
Mine is still on stock but maybe now is the time to learn how to flash and all. Would you recommend doing it also in terms of camera and stability or is it rather experimental for testing new Android features / proof of concept etc.?
I keep my device updated thanks to these custom builds. I use them as my daily driver, totally recommended.
Thanks goodness iphones can't be lost or broken
It's more like... I've been getting better at not losing or breaking them as time goes by, and I've been investing in better cases/screen protectors. So I don't ruin them myself like I used to. But the damn things still break on their own. My last one, an LG G3, kept on having screen problems. I had the digitizer replaced once, had the whole phone replaced once, and it was having problems again when I gave up on it.
This makes the S-class sound like the Nightly branch of a repo, and the E-class sound like the Stable branch of the same repo.
In a way it is (there are new features). But the difference is that nightly is for people who accept that something might be broken. In our car analogy MB had to spend one gazillion dollars making sure the features on nightly (S-class) are as stable as you'd expect from the battle tested version. Apple will have to do the same thing. Even though the oled screens and facial recognition is new tech, their $1k-paying customers aren't happy if it doesn't just work perfectly anyway.
Not an exact analogy as an s-class car will be held to even higher standards and "bugs" will not be tolerated or excused as price for cutting edge features. Both are stable releases
I can completely understand the reasoning, and it is very clever indeed. This goes in line with the first Apple Watch Edition, which sold for $10k+ but wasn't very successful at all, not even for a luxury product. So they quietly removed it from sale and instead pushed the ceramic model which is still a luxury product both in looks and in price, but not at that gold tier.
However, the price of the lowest-tier of the latest model has been going up steadily over time, which seems not natural at all. I'd expect them to keep the price of the lower-tier constant, at least. OTOH, if they push out an Apple Watch with LTE, you can combine it with an iPad and the AirPods, and there will be no need for the iPhone at all. How much either of these combinations is "reasonable," only time can tell.
However, the price of the lowest-tier of the latest model has been going up steadily over time, which seems not natural at all. I'd expect them to keep the price of the lower-tier constant, at least. OTOH, if they push out an Apple Watch with LTE, you can combine it with an iPad and the AirPods, and there will be no need for the iPhone at all. How much either of these combinations is "reasonable," only time can tell.
> However, the price of the lowest-tier of the latest model has been going up steadily over time,
The base model iPhone has been $649 for as long as I can remember, which means it's technically gone down in price when you account for a decade of inflation...
The base model iPhone has been $649 for as long as I can remember, which means it's technically gone down in price when you account for a decade of inflation...
Maybe in the US, but not in Europe or in South America.
By saying no need of an iPhone you mean to say no need of a phone altogether since the watch will already have LTE or you mean to say consumers will be free to buy any other phone?
Because just relying on the watch (for modes of communication, consumption etc) might have other constraints like battery life, reading, other forms of ease etc.
Because just relying on the watch (for modes of communication, consumption etc) might have other constraints like battery life, reading, other forms of ease etc.
> A lot of people just get the best iphone every 24 months (e.g. rich people, or people who have a generous smartphone policy at work).
You don't need to be rich to afford a new iPhone every 24 months. $1000 over 24 months is a little under $42 per month. After the first time, you won't spend that much anyway, because you can sell your current 24-month-old iPhone for a few hundred dollars when you buy the next one.
You don't need to be rich to afford a new iPhone every 24 months. $1000 over 24 months is a little under $42 per month. After the first time, you won't spend that much anyway, because you can sell your current 24-month-old iPhone for a few hundred dollars when you buy the next one.
> The S-class Mercedes costs twice as much as the "Normal" E-class
I think it's mostly because base E-class comes with way smaller engine than base S-class, not to mention less standard equipment. When you start comparing apples to apples (say the 400 4MATIC variant for both cars), the price difference becomes suprisingly small.
I think it's mostly because base E-class comes with way smaller engine than base S-class, not to mention less standard equipment. When you start comparing apples to apples (say the 400 4MATIC variant for both cars), the price difference becomes suprisingly small.
The difference here in base price is 976k vs 576k for the same base spec (same driveline). The S is then probably better equipped so you could probably get closer if you specced the E up to S level. On the other hand the customers buying the S probably also throw in a 10-20% extra equipment.
Funny that there is no overlap between engine choices for E/S in the US (smallest S is the 450 and E only exists as 300 or AMG)
It's also a good way to ramp up manufacturing on new hardware features that can't go from zero to tens of millions in year one.
Put it in the flagship, make it at a higher per-unit cost, and work the kinks out to get the manufacturing process down. Then by year two it can be economically added to lower tier phones.
Put it in the flagship, make it at a higher per-unit cost, and work the kinks out to get the manufacturing process down. Then by year two it can be economically added to lower tier phones.
Lots of folks lease S-classes, just like many folks (myself included, maybe) will lease the iPhone X.
Works for me. I may be up for the next SE Class :) Provided SE sees an upgrade. A genuine "thank you" for everyone who are paying for all the features that will be in my next SE purchase ~2 yrs later (I hope to keep it for at least that long).
On a different note, E-Class seeing most of the features of previous year's S-Class may be a bit far fetched, don't you think so? Maybe couple of features that make the newly launched E-Class visibly an upgrade from last E-Class but "most" and that too at half the price of S-Class seems slightly off. I would assume that the previous year model of S-Class would still cost the same (a little more or less) and will be in market - unless a new S-Class model is released every year.
PS. Know very little about cars (def. too little luxury ones). Just had some general doubts. And I hope E in E-Class doesn't stand for "economy".
On a different note, E-Class seeing most of the features of previous year's S-Class may be a bit far fetched, don't you think so? Maybe couple of features that make the newly launched E-Class visibly an upgrade from last E-Class but "most" and that too at half the price of S-Class seems slightly off. I would assume that the previous year model of S-Class would still cost the same (a little more or less) and will be in market - unless a new S-Class model is released every year.
PS. Know very little about cars (def. too little luxury ones). Just had some general doubts. And I hope E in E-Class doesn't stand for "economy".
> PS. Know very little about cars (def. too little luxury ones). Just had some general doubts. And I hope E in E-Class doesn't stand for "economy".
"Executive" I think. But it's just a symbol that means their second highest model.
"Executive" I think. But it's just a symbol that means their second highest model.
Not excusing the price, but people these days spend multiple hours a day on their phones. Phones are as important as cars for example. How high prices can go ? Even higher imo
People are ready to pay for expensive cars for a better experience and higher "social standing". Phones are not that different in this regard
People are ready to pay for expensive cars for a better experience and higher "social standing". Phones are not that different in this regard
Yeah but there was a big jump in performance / new features between early iphone generations.
Nowadays the difference is really marginal for every day use. You are only going to take better photos in marginal low light conditions, if you even take lots of photos, everything else will be pretty much the same experience. I'd argue that we are even in removal of features mode (audio jack, touch id) which is putting off people like me who normally wouldn't mind a high price tag for a smartphone.
There are enough apple fans out there to buy any piece of plastic that apple will sell at the price of gold. But for a wider wealthy and techie audience, I think the value added of spending more on an iphone is becoming hard to justify.
Nowadays the difference is really marginal for every day use. You are only going to take better photos in marginal low light conditions, if you even take lots of photos, everything else will be pretty much the same experience. I'd argue that we are even in removal of features mode (audio jack, touch id) which is putting off people like me who normally wouldn't mind a high price tag for a smartphone.
There are enough apple fans out there to buy any piece of plastic that apple will sell at the price of gold. But for a wider wealthy and techie audience, I think the value added of spending more on an iphone is becoming hard to justify.
Its surprising how good a used, $50 phone is today. You can get something on par with a Note 3 or Note 4 from LG and get two solid years of use out of it, perhaps more with ROMs.
This is part of why I stopped buying the latest flagship, just didn't make sense for me to worry so much when I could avoid that entirely, and get 98% of the same performance and features.
This is part of why I stopped buying the latest flagship, just didn't make sense for me to worry so much when I could avoid that entirely, and get 98% of the same performance and features.
There's no way I'd buy a used Android phone, unless it was from Google and was less than two years old. Android phone makers are terrible about security updates.
Actually things have improved considerably this year. You may still not have the latest OS version, but the security patches are arriving every 1-2 months.
Oreo is supposed to improve things even further, but for know its just a theory.
Oreo is supposed to improve things even further, but for know its just a theory.
im still rocking my nexus6 because i dont see a reason to upgrade. before that i was rocking note line from samsung.
the only thing that im missing in comparasion with current phones is camera.
the only thing that im missing in comparasion with current phones is camera.
Nexus 6 isn’t even 3 years old. Many people keep phones that long.
that was not the point, the point was that the phones crossed some threshold in performance/features where cheap phones are good enough or flagships from 3 years ago, that you do not get that much more from current flagship vs older ones/cheap phone in comparison to some years ago
There's still no September update, while other phones got it last week.
https://developers.google.com/android/ota#shamu
How's the battery on those used phones? That feels like the main blocker for me.
New battery is about $10, not exactly a blocker, but they do increase the price.
Hmm OK, so I guess you just make sure you buy a phone with an easily replaceable battery then? Or is it that cheap when you have it done too?
You don't even need that. Phones like the LG Fortune, which I own and works totally fine, can be bought for $25 new and out the door, no contract, at mainstream retailers like Best Buy.
I also have a moto e4 which I'm using to type this. I think it cost me about $65. (I also have a variety of iDevices and flagship phones for testing stuff I write)
We are in the age of adequate, super cheap phones that aren't awful. I have the option of, but choose not to place my sim card in one of more expensive and flashy devices I own because I'd rather have the thing I carry with me be a "worthless commodity" that could get lost without my caring at all.
Last time my phone broke I just swapped the sim card that day, not caring in the slightest. This is a liberating experience.
You can also do this with prescription glasses - you can pay under $7 a pair online. Anti-scratch, investment preserving upgrades and the feeling of preciousness are all gone. Not having to emotionally invest in things is wonderful.
I also have a moto e4 which I'm using to type this. I think it cost me about $65. (I also have a variety of iDevices and flagship phones for testing stuff I write)
We are in the age of adequate, super cheap phones that aren't awful. I have the option of, but choose not to place my sim card in one of more expensive and flashy devices I own because I'd rather have the thing I carry with me be a "worthless commodity" that could get lost without my caring at all.
Last time my phone broke I just swapped the sim card that day, not caring in the slightest. This is a liberating experience.
You can also do this with prescription glasses - you can pay under $7 a pair online. Anti-scratch, investment preserving upgrades and the feeling of preciousness are all gone. Not having to emotionally invest in things is wonderful.
True, but avoiding the production of new phones is one of the draws for me, and batteries that quickly run out one of the hurdles :)
It's actually not too bad, even on phones without "easily" replaceable batteries.
Speaking for the OnePlus One and Nexus 5 the procedure is pretty straight forward: pop it open using plastic trim tools (which are often sold with batteries) disconnect the ribbon cable and pry the battery off any adhesive. Drop the new one in, reconnect it and snap it back together and you're done.
Depends on the phone I guess, but the whole thing takes maybe 15 minutes.
Speaking for the OnePlus One and Nexus 5 the procedure is pretty straight forward: pop it open using plastic trim tools (which are often sold with batteries) disconnect the ribbon cable and pry the battery off any adhesive. Drop the new one in, reconnect it and snap it back together and you're done.
Depends on the phone I guess, but the whole thing takes maybe 15 minutes.
And obtaining a battery? That sounds pretty difficult for a years-old phone of which the battery is not meant to be replaced...
eBay is your friend, you can get batteries for ancient phones like the Samsung Intercept for $4 still, brand new. Luckily for us, batteries are a highly commodified component, you can replace the cells yourself with minimal effort if you so choose.
When I'm feeling like an uber-cheapskate I rebuild laptop batteries, recycling the failed cells and replacing them with good cells from other batteries.
When I'm feeling like an uber-cheapskate I rebuild laptop batteries, recycling the failed cells and replacing them with good cells from other batteries.
> 98% of the same performance and features
You’re talking about phones with hardware from half a decade ago. How exactly are you getting the same performance and features, let alone even support or updates from manufacturers?
You’re talking about phones with hardware from half a decade ago. How exactly are you getting the same performance and features, let alone even support or updates from manufacturers?
In what world is a chip from 2014 a half decade old? Most of the phones in that price bracket will be using a Snapdragon 410 or similar.
Hmm…it looks like the Note 3 is actually only 4 years old.
[deleted]
Got a five years old Jolla which still receives updates every other month
That's odd, considering their first phone was launched in stores less than 4 years ago.
In any case, I used to have one too until about 2 weeks ago when it finally broke down (tbh, possibly due to moisture). While it's not odd they still release updates for their phone OS for the only phone they've ever sold to regular customers, I can't brush away GP's point entirely. The hardware is definitely sub-par by now (it wasn't that good to begin with), not to mention the trade-offs made in the construction of the phone (loudspeaker issues are rather common, and my phone started later to have problems with the display back-light, too).
In any case, I used to have one too until about 2 weeks ago when it finally broke down (tbh, possibly due to moisture). While it's not odd they still release updates for their phone OS for the only phone they've ever sold to regular customers, I can't brush away GP's point entirely. The hardware is definitely sub-par by now (it wasn't that good to begin with), not to mention the trade-offs made in the construction of the phone (loudspeaker issues are rather common, and my phone started later to have problems with the display back-light, too).
My criticism was mainly aimed at Android, which has a tendency to drop support for devices within 1-2 years.
[deleted]
which is why should use Lineage OS.
> Yeah but there was a big jump in performance / new features between early iphone generations. Nowadays the difference is really marginal for every day use.
You can say the exact same for PCs, which could have stopped getting any performance improvements about 5 years ago and the general populace wouldn’t have complained at all.
You can say the exact same for PCs, which could have stopped getting any performance improvements about 5 years ago and the general populace wouldn’t have complained at all.
And you can see the effect on sales. The only reason to replace a laptop these days is if you spill some coffee on it.
Or you start getting into editing 8K+ images in Photoshop. That's not much fun on a Macbook 12" (I mean, it's doable but ... slow ... ly ... and ... clu ... nk ... ily.)
Computers haven't gotten much faster in the last half decade or so. This includes the MacBook 12".
GPUs and SSDs are a different subject...
GPUs and SSDs are a different subject...
It's that and Photoshop (understandbly) chewing RAM like an absolute demon - 8GB isn't really enough for Photoshopping large images with multiple layers. I would use my 24GB Windows 10 machine but ... that's even worse due to Windows 10.
What the hell are you doing with your windows?
I am doing nothing with it because it's clunky and slow and practically useless for anything except the occasional game.
Yes, some people have Windows 10 installations that run perfectly fastly and greatly and God's own nectar spews forth from their machine and feeds their family etc.
Which is nice for them but doesn't help -me- with -my- machine that runs like a dog with Windows 10 (but was perfectly fine with Windows 8.)
Yes, some people have Windows 10 installations that run perfectly fastly and greatly and God's own nectar spews forth from their machine and feeds their family etc.
Which is nice for them but doesn't help -me- with -my- machine that runs like a dog with Windows 10 (but was perfectly fine with Windows 8.)
There are still reasons to replace a laptop before it breaks. For example, my 2012 Asus Zenbook has only 4 GB of RAM and cannot drive an external 4K display. Both are not urgent problems for me since I also have a desktop PC with plenty of RAM and a 4K display, but if I did not, I'd be looking into a replacement for the notebook around now.
And yet people keep buying iPhones in the tens of millions every year, so obviously there is something off with that logic.
Yup. I'm still happy with my 2013 15" MBP, and my wife just down-graded to a more portable 12" MB.
I keep reading that MacBooks have been selling well compared to the rest of the PC market, year after year.
Agree. People will spend $1000 (or more) for relatively minor features on their cars. A phone is with you 24/7 - it's less like a tool, or even a digital assistant, and more like a cybernetic implant.
The amazing thing isn't that phones cost so much but that competition is such that you can get an excellent product with top-of-the-line CPU, radio, RAM, screen, everything for $1,000 instead of $100,000 or $1,000,000.
The amazing thing isn't that phones cost so much but that competition is such that you can get an excellent product with top-of-the-line CPU, radio, RAM, screen, everything for $1,000 instead of $100,000 or $1,000,000.
> competition is such that you can get an excellent product [..] for $1,000
The really interesting part is that for ~$1000 you get the best product available at any price.
That's the magic of economies of scale in consumer markets, especially technology. It's so incredibly expensive and largely fruitless to step out of the economy of scale, that practically speaking no-one does it.
I don't have a yacht like Paul Allen, I bet my house isn't as nice as Bill Gates' and my bank account looks nothing like Zuckerberg's. But it's quite possible I have the same phone!
The really interesting part is that for ~$1000 you get the best product available at any price.
That's the magic of economies of scale in consumer markets, especially technology. It's so incredibly expensive and largely fruitless to step out of the economy of scale, that practically speaking no-one does it.
I don't have a yacht like Paul Allen, I bet my house isn't as nice as Bill Gates' and my bank account looks nothing like Zuckerberg's. But it's quite possible I have the same phone!
Andy Warhol: "What’s great about this country is that America started the tradition where the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest. You can be watching TV and see Coca-Cola, and you know that the President drinks Coke, Liz Taylor drinks Coke, and just think, you can drink Coke, too. A Coke is a Coke and no amount of money can get you a better Coke than the one the bum on the corner is drinking. All the Cokes are the same and all the Cokes are good. Liz Taylor knows it, the President knows it, the bum knows it, and you know it."
This was said before fancier soft drinks were sold, I assume.
For example, some bars round here sell this cola: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fentimans_Curiosity_Cola
For example, some bars round here sell this cola: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fentimans_Curiosity_Cola
But is is really… unaffordable to anyone but the richest?
I mean, it's still only three bucks.
even the wealthiest people are probably still going to go for a Coke (Fentimans isn't that good imo)
Coke is a bad example. Let's talk about a bottle of wine which is $20k. I certainly can't afford that along with a lot of other people.
$20k wine is probably not going to taste any better than $20 wine, objectively speaking. It's just a luxury good for conspicuous spending.
A lot depends on what's meant by "wine" and the price range involved.
I like port, for example. I usually have a bottle sitting in my apartment so that I can pour a glass after dinner and drink it while relaxing.
And even without an "educated palate" I -- and other people I've invited to blind-taste who knew less than I did about it -- can taste the difference between, say, a $30 bottle and a $100 bottle. It's not a subtle thing at all; it's a massive difference.
But that's not because of the price; the price reflects the manner of production and the actual quality of the product. The cheap bottle is a blend of wine from several different years, and possibly different producers, may have been just dumped in steel tanks after fermentation to await bottling, etc., while the more expensive stuff is often going to be from a single year and/or single producer, barrel-aged, and so on. This produces a large and obvious difference in the way it tastes.
Once you get into that tier of well-produced port, you won't see much in the way of big jumps in quality for paying more. The difference between, say, a $200 bottle and a $100 bottle is much less than between the $100 bottle and the $30 bottle, despite the larger price jump. At that point you're mostly hunting for particular years which were known to be good, and are expensive because of that plus their scarcity.
I like port, for example. I usually have a bottle sitting in my apartment so that I can pour a glass after dinner and drink it while relaxing.
And even without an "educated palate" I -- and other people I've invited to blind-taste who knew less than I did about it -- can taste the difference between, say, a $30 bottle and a $100 bottle. It's not a subtle thing at all; it's a massive difference.
But that's not because of the price; the price reflects the manner of production and the actual quality of the product. The cheap bottle is a blend of wine from several different years, and possibly different producers, may have been just dumped in steel tanks after fermentation to await bottling, etc., while the more expensive stuff is often going to be from a single year and/or single producer, barrel-aged, and so on. This produces a large and obvious difference in the way it tastes.
Once you get into that tier of well-produced port, you won't see much in the way of big jumps in quality for paying more. The difference between, say, a $200 bottle and a $100 bottle is much less than between the $100 bottle and the $30 bottle, despite the larger price jump. At that point you're mostly hunting for particular years which were known to be good, and are expensive because of that plus their scarcity.
It's not true. Yes, there are snobs, and there is a lot of subjectivity involved, an several studies exposed that.
On the other hand, some wines have a certain richness of flavor not present in other wines. Certain aspects of it can be better appreciate by people who developed a certain taste of wines and can differentiate better. They're the target group of the more expensive wines. You pay for a unique experience, for something that you like but you can' really get anywhere else.
True, the prices of certain wines reach ridiculous levels, but it doesn't mean they wouldn't taste better, especially for someone who tasted a lot of wines and can appreciate them. All this in spite of the fact that "objectively better taste" is in fact an oxymoron, since all discussions of taste (as well as beauty etc.) are by nature subjective and all notions of objectivity are assumed because of a certain consensus (by a majority, an authority/experts etc.).
With wine and spirits, you're often paying for rarity, rather than outright quality.
I'm not a huge wine snob (most wines I buy are in the $10-$20 range), but I have tasted some rather expensive wines. In a lot of cases, you're not really paying for "richness of flavor" (a lot of cheaper wines have plenty of richness and balance), you're paying for name and for rarity, especially when it comes to older wines.
I'm actually more into whisky, and I can tell you in no uncertain terms, that the best whisky I have ever tasted in my life costs around $400. Now, that is still somewhat expensive compared to the <$100 whiskies I usually enjoy, but it's not outrageously expensive, especially considering how long a bottle of whisky lasts, when compared to a bottle of wine, once it's opened.
And it was immeasurably better than any multi-thousand dollar whisky I've had the chance to taste. With Macallans, Dalmores, Pappy van Winkle and other high-priced spirits, you are absolutely paying for a name, not necessarily for the quality.
I'm not a huge wine snob (most wines I buy are in the $10-$20 range), but I have tasted some rather expensive wines. In a lot of cases, you're not really paying for "richness of flavor" (a lot of cheaper wines have plenty of richness and balance), you're paying for name and for rarity, especially when it comes to older wines.
I'm actually more into whisky, and I can tell you in no uncertain terms, that the best whisky I have ever tasted in my life costs around $400. Now, that is still somewhat expensive compared to the <$100 whiskies I usually enjoy, but it's not outrageously expensive, especially considering how long a bottle of whisky lasts, when compared to a bottle of wine, once it's opened.
And it was immeasurably better than any multi-thousand dollar whisky I've had the chance to taste. With Macallans, Dalmores, Pappy van Winkle and other high-priced spirits, you are absolutely paying for a name, not necessarily for the quality.
As another whiskey lover, can you tell me what that bottle is?
Of course :-)
It was a Bunnahabhain XXV, the greatest sherry cask dram I have ever had the pleasure of tasting. I am very close to rationalizing buying a bottle, but I know I can buy four $100 bottles of other whiskies that are 95% as good, and will give me a wider range of experiences, for that same price.
It was a Bunnahabhain XXV, the greatest sherry cask dram I have ever had the pleasure of tasting. I am very close to rationalizing buying a bottle, but I know I can buy four $100 bottles of other whiskies that are 95% as good, and will give me a wider range of experiences, for that same price.
I'm not a huge wine drinker and what I buy is usually on the relatively inexpensive side--though not lowest end. Now and then I have splurged for a premium wine tasting (maybe $50-100 bottles at retail). I do appreciate the difference--slightly. I'd also rather spend that money on a nice bottle of whiskey and stick with ~$10-15/bottle wine:-)
For the most part, I agree with your post. Interestingly, most of my favorite whiskeys are around $400ish too. That said, my absolute favorite (35yr Hibiki) I can absolutely tell the difference with and it's much more expensive than that.
You pay for a unique experience, for something that you like but you can' really get anywhere else.
What you're saying is certainly true for a $200-500 bottle of wine and possibly even a $2000-5000 bottle of wine, but once you get up to $20k you're buying a rare collectors item as an investment vehicle and not a drink.
What you're saying is certainly true for a $200-500 bottle of wine and possibly even a $2000-5000 bottle of wine, but once you get up to $20k you're buying a rare collectors item as an investment vehicle and not a drink.
This is different to soft drinks in other countries... how? Change the drink to whiskey, another popular one, and you can be sure that there's a difference between what the American rich and poor drink.
> no amount of money can get you a better Coke than the one the bum on the corner is drinking. All the Cokes are the same and all the Cokes are good
And coke is not the same everywhere either. My guess is that the prez isn't going to be drinking much watery post-mix coke with his meals.
Similarly, coke in glass bottles is nicer than post-mix coke, and it's more expensive. 'Regular' cokes are in-between. And, for the US with its HFCS coke, you can import the much better-tasting sucrose-coke, which is more expensive to obtain if you're importing it yourself (although a lot of places on the Mexican border already have it).
> no amount of money can get you a better Coke than the one the bum on the corner is drinking. All the Cokes are the same and all the Cokes are good
And coke is not the same everywhere either. My guess is that the prez isn't going to be drinking much watery post-mix coke with his meals.
Similarly, coke in glass bottles is nicer than post-mix coke, and it's more expensive. 'Regular' cokes are in-between. And, for the US with its HFCS coke, you can import the much better-tasting sucrose-coke, which is more expensive to obtain if you're importing it yourself (although a lot of places on the Mexican border already have it).
> This is different to soft drinks in other countries... how?
The US - along with a select few nations - was a pioneer when it comes to mass-consumer economics that leverage a relatively free market to deliver high quality goods to both rich and poor. It required a dramatic leap in productivity, manufacturing output, to get the scale necessary to drive prices down to such an extent. Ford's Model T was arguably the earliest, best example of that. Over eight years post introduction it went from $850 (6k unit sales) to $360 (577k unit sales), eventually bottoming out under $300 (and incomes climbed substantially over that ~16 year total period). Whether we're talking mass production soda, or cars, or radios, or kitchen appliances, the US was particularly a global pioneer at it from ~1880-1980.
> And, for the US with its HFCS coke, you can import the much better-tasting sucrose-coke
To be fair, that's a Warhol quote from 1975. At the time he said it, Coke was still using sugar in the US market. It was 1984 when Coke and Pepsi announced plans to switch to HFCS.
The US - along with a select few nations - was a pioneer when it comes to mass-consumer economics that leverage a relatively free market to deliver high quality goods to both rich and poor. It required a dramatic leap in productivity, manufacturing output, to get the scale necessary to drive prices down to such an extent. Ford's Model T was arguably the earliest, best example of that. Over eight years post introduction it went from $850 (6k unit sales) to $360 (577k unit sales), eventually bottoming out under $300 (and incomes climbed substantially over that ~16 year total period). Whether we're talking mass production soda, or cars, or radios, or kitchen appliances, the US was particularly a global pioneer at it from ~1880-1980.
> And, for the US with its HFCS coke, you can import the much better-tasting sucrose-coke
To be fair, that's a Warhol quote from 1975. At the time he said it, Coke was still using sugar in the US market. It was 1984 when Coke and Pepsi announced plans to switch to HFCS.
You can buy Mexican cokes now in California Safeway's and Lucky's supermarkets.
They're common even in South Florida convenience stores. Not every single one, but maybe 25% of stores.
Yes, Coke does taste different depending on the country.
(And I've tried it on 5 different continents.)
(And I've tried it on 5 different continents.)
Whenever I go to the US, I always switch to diet coke. Not because of cutting down on that area to compensate for holiday food intake, but because aspartame coke tastes nicer than HFCS coke.
[deleted]
Great thing about America is that no matter how rich or poor you are, you drink the same coke - Andy Warhol.
This is a better quote about America's consumer culture -
What was the nature of MTV? For me it was insatiable desire. Thats the very nature of Americans. We want what we don't have. One of the characteristics of American consumers in the early 80's was Shop till you drop. "I want it. I don't know what it is but I want it." - Dale Pon, Advertising exec part of the MTV launch campaign in Aug 1981
For example, look at the now defunct Vertu. All the titanium and ostrich skin in the world wouldn’t let them sell a better OS.
For what it's worth Vertu is still around (www.vertu.com) and still selling phones to a certain clientele at places like Harrods and Dubai Airport. And with Android 6, Snapdragon 820, a 534ppi screen and a 3200mAh battery, they can at least hold their own against your average android phone.
Ah, OK, I’d assumed that as they shut their manufacturing facilities and went bankrupt they’d closed their concessions as well: https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/13/15963656/vertu-luxury-pho...
Note he said OS. As far as I understand the android fork on those phones is awful. Also the hardware is always a generation behind.
As far as I understand the android fork on those phones is awful.
According to this review: https://www.androidcentral.com/vertu-constellation it's pretty close to stock android these days with a slightly customized launcher and a few minor tweaks like "Where a typical phone might offer only a few options for title — Mister, Miss, Doctor — Vertu Accounts offer a laundry list of titles, ranging from King and Queen to Sheikh and Lord and His Excellency"
Also the hardware is always a generation behind.
Hey they're improving. They used to be at least three generations behind.
According to this review: https://www.androidcentral.com/vertu-constellation it's pretty close to stock android these days with a slightly customized launcher and a few minor tweaks like "Where a typical phone might offer only a few options for title — Mister, Miss, Doctor — Vertu Accounts offer a laundry list of titles, ranging from King and Queen to Sheikh and Lord and His Excellency"
Also the hardware is always a generation behind.
Hey they're improving. They used to be at least three generations behind.
> But it's quite possible I have the same phone!
Maybe, maybe not: https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/vertu-for-bentley-smart...
Maybe, maybe not: https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/vertu-for-bentley-smart...
I wonder what phone Bill Gates uses nowadays!?! He said many times he's very loyal to MS but they have all but stopped making phones, so every choice left is a bad one...
If I was as rich as Bill Gates I wouldn't have a smartphone. I would have a secretary follow me everywhere and she would be the one to use her phone.
Just kidding. I'd have an android and a squad of engineers to set it up exactly like I want.
Just kidding. I'd have an android and a squad of engineers to set it up exactly like I want.
If I had to go back to Windows phone, I'd use a Lumia 950/XL or an HP Elite x3.
The main things I'd give up would be first party Google apps and neat apps like my D&D companion. I'd be giving up SnapChat, but I rarely use it. Not sure if Bill Gates is big into that one!
Honestly for a professional, a Windows Phone would probably work just fine. But you give up big players in social, most banking apps and a vast library of entertainment. Fortunately for some, you can bank on your computer, and distractions on your phone are not desired.
The main things I'd give up would be first party Google apps and neat apps like my D&D companion. I'd be giving up SnapChat, but I rarely use it. Not sure if Bill Gates is big into that one!
Honestly for a professional, a Windows Phone would probably work just fine. But you give up big players in social, most banking apps and a vast library of entertainment. Fortunately for some, you can bank on your computer, and distractions on your phone are not desired.
[deleted]
Or, for $50 you can get a phone with a midrange chipset that will be nearly as fast as any of the top tier phones out there. The slightly used phone market has really broadened access to cellphones quite a bit.
As an Android dev, I see the total opposite sentiment. Most new phones are pretty damn good, even the mid range.
I assume things will go the same way as the PC. Cheaper hardware for most, Apple still holding onto a niche in the market.
I assume things will go the same way as the PC. Cheaper hardware for most, Apple still holding onto a niche in the market.
Android security updates are the only reason to update my Nexus 5. A decent midrange phone, with an open bootloader, would probably do me for many years.
How are you still getting security updates for the Nexus 5? The last security update they released was from October 2016.
I use the Lineage ROM on my Nexus 5, and that does the trick for me.
Someone I know has a Nexus 4 and gets regular security updates.
Yep, I'm using a Nexus 4 picked up nearly 2 years ago off ebay for around $US60.
It gets the monthly security updates. I guess I worry about the binary blobs that vendors may or not be updating but that's true of any hardware no longer receiving updates.
It gets the monthly security updates. I guess I worry about the binary blobs that vendors may or not be updating but that's true of any hardware no longer receiving updates.
> Most new phones are pretty damn good, even the mid range.
For the first week, at least. Then they start to accumulate cruft and slow down, eventually becoming barely usable.
I've experienced it in the past. I see it happen for my friends and family. I decided some time ago to save up that $750 - $1k and go for the high-range phones, so that I can use them for two or three years without daily frustrations.
The top-most commenter is right. Phones are used even more frequently than cars; for many, even more frequently than other types of computers combined. It's one of those things it's not worth to cheap out on - like a mattress or an office chair.
(Now, of course part of me is happy for the mid-range phones costing what they do, because this is why high-end phones cost $1k and not $10k.)
For the first week, at least. Then they start to accumulate cruft and slow down, eventually becoming barely usable.
I've experienced it in the past. I see it happen for my friends and family. I decided some time ago to save up that $750 - $1k and go for the high-range phones, so that I can use them for two or three years without daily frustrations.
The top-most commenter is right. Phones are used even more frequently than cars; for many, even more frequently than other types of computers combined. It's one of those things it's not worth to cheap out on - like a mattress or an office chair.
(Now, of course part of me is happy for the mid-range phones costing what they do, because this is why high-end phones cost $1k and not $10k.)
I disagree - I've used a $300 stock android phone for just over a year now, and I haven't really run into any "cruft" issues. But, poor android performance is a very valid problem with android.
Agree with this - cheap Android phones are what they are, but mid-range hardware is astonishing and if you don't install clutter, you don't get clutter.
(I even remove/disable any Facebook clients etc, only use Chrome to access services. Perhaps this is why I'm happy.)
(I even remove/disable any Facebook clients etc, only use Chrome to access services. Perhaps this is why I'm happy.)
I have a Nexus 5X and then I bought my wife a Moto G4 plus and I was really impressed with her phone which was a good amount cheaper than mine.
We've both had them for a while now and they are both good phones but I think I'll spend less on my next phone since I can and still get something that works very well.
We've both had them for a while now and they are both good phones but I think I'll spend less on my next phone since I can and still get something that works very well.
Please don't spread lies :/
300-400$ range phones work perfectly well for years and there's now even a staggering amount of pretty good phones covering most usecases from companies like Xiaomi that can be bought for as low as 150$ and they still run about as well as an iPhone 5c.
300-400$ range phones work perfectly well for years and there's now even a staggering amount of pretty good phones covering most usecases from companies like Xiaomi that can be bought for as low as 150$ and they still run about as well as an iPhone 5c.
So they run as well as a 4 year old phone with a 5 year old CPU/GPU? Sounds... not good. Not to mention you can get that 5C for about $100 today, so $50 less than your Xiaomi.
I've never seen a new 5C for that price shrug
My point was - they run well enough, do their job and are really affordable (after all, people were happy with performance of iPhone 5 / 5C weren't they ;).
iPhones (especially refurbished ones) aren't here (I do understand that situation in US is a bit better).
My point was - they run well enough, do their job and are really affordable (after all, people were happy with performance of iPhone 5 / 5C weren't they ;).
iPhones (especially refurbished ones) aren't here (I do understand that situation in US is a bit better).
Just by the virtue of having more system storage to begin with than the entry level models.
I've been using a 5s for 3 years now, and I don't have much desire to replace it. I don't find it the least bit slow. The only time I get frustrated with it is when network performance is slow or reception is bad, but that happens with any phone.
The 5S was indeed a champ. You might want to hold off on iOS 11, though; I’ve been running a beta on an iPad with the same A7 cpu, and it just can’t keep up.
(Perhaps the 5S wont have it so bad given that it won’t have to deal with the new springboard and multitasking...)
(Perhaps the 5S wont have it so bad given that it won’t have to deal with the new springboard and multitasking...)
> Then they start to accumulate cruft and slow down, eventually becoming barely usable.
When naive users install 3 different weather widgets, 2 battery meters and a custom launcher, you start to understand why people say mid-range phones start to slow down.
When naive users install 3 different weather widgets, 2 battery meters and a custom launcher, you start to understand why people say mid-range phones start to slow down.
That sort of behavior should not slow a (mid-range) phone down.
That's probably not a great outcome. Financially, Apple is doing well. Are there any PC makers with solid profitability? I think the phone market is even worse. Apple takes almost all the profit.
I mostly just don't get the loyalty people have to operating systems or particular manufacturers. When there is an application that I need and it's exclusive to some platform, then that decides what OS I need.
I also am not bothered by a $1000 phone and I'm surprised that it's a topic of contention here. Many of us spend more than that on coffee in a year and the phone is probably just as important. $3 / day is well within reach for most of us. My life isn't going to be any different if I choose the $1 / day phone.
I mostly just don't get the loyalty people have to operating systems or particular manufacturers. When there is an application that I need and it's exclusive to some platform, then that decides what OS I need.
I also am not bothered by a $1000 phone and I'm surprised that it's a topic of contention here. Many of us spend more than that on coffee in a year and the phone is probably just as important. $3 / day is well within reach for most of us. My life isn't going to be any different if I choose the $1 / day phone.
Mid range cars can also drive pretty much like top of the range cars, they share most features yet people like high end cars.
There is a noticeable difference in experience between a mercedes and a ford. I am not convinced there is a noticeable difference between an i5 and i7 unless you are doing something super demanding.
Yeah, the Ford drives better :P
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/mclaren/570/2016/2016-motor-t...
http://www.motortrend.com/cars/mclaren/570/2016/2016-motor-t...
That's just not true in any possible way. The handling and driving experience of a nicer sports car is absolutely nothing like a regular midranger, not to mention all the quality of life features.
I think it's truer these days than most of us would admit. The current Shelby Mustang placed only behind the McLaren 570S in Motortrend's 2016 best driver's car contest, beating out the Merc, Aston Martin, Porsche, and others[0]. The BRZ might not be fast, but it has almost universally positive reviews anyway because it handles and drives so damn well[1]. Even the $23k Ford Focus ST gets positive reviews as a great driving car[2]. You can get a fantastic sports car for well under $75k these days.
0: http://www.motortrend.com/cars/mclaren/570/2016/2016-motor-t... 1: https://jalopnik.com/what-nobody-understands-about-the-subar... 2: http://www.automobilemag.com/news/2016-ford-focus-st-one-wee...
0: http://www.motortrend.com/cars/mclaren/570/2016/2016-motor-t... 1: https://jalopnik.com/what-nobody-understands-about-the-subar... 2: http://www.automobilemag.com/news/2016-ford-focus-st-one-wee...
Oh I know, I have a fiesta ST myself for weekend driving and taking to the track; it's amazing. In fact I find it far more fun to drive than some much more expensive sports cars (specifically a F80 M3 owned by someone close to me). While it doesn't have anywhere near the driving joy it still doesn't hold a candle to the M3 on faster tracks.
For reference, the trackday club I belong to is doing a weekender trip to the nurburgrink in late october: I'm not taking the fiesta for that (also I don't want to drive 800km in it to get there).
For reference, the trackday club I belong to is doing a weekender trip to the nurburgrink in late october: I'm not taking the fiesta for that (also I don't want to drive 800km in it to get there).
I must be the exception here as I spend no more than an hour on my iPhone (6s) each day.
I use Apple Music, WhatsApp, and the camera. However, WhatsApp is available on Android and the camera on the iPhone 6s still doesn't even come close to that of an SLR so I tend to use that and keep the iPhone in my pocket. When I take photos, I have gone out with the intention of taking photos, so there is no convenience factor of an iPhone for me.
However, I also love cars. You can take them out for fun on a weekend, show them off and talk to other owners at meets, drive them on tracks all over the world, and, if you made sensible choices, have the depreciation of an iPhone make a car look like an investment. Meanwhile, everyone and their mother has an iPhone - there is no novelty to owning one.
Thus, until I start getting more out of an iPhone, I can't help but think how a Moto G and an extra $800 in pocket to spend on something else would give me so much more pleasure than the next iPhone.
I use Apple Music, WhatsApp, and the camera. However, WhatsApp is available on Android and the camera on the iPhone 6s still doesn't even come close to that of an SLR so I tend to use that and keep the iPhone in my pocket. When I take photos, I have gone out with the intention of taking photos, so there is no convenience factor of an iPhone for me.
However, I also love cars. You can take them out for fun on a weekend, show them off and talk to other owners at meets, drive them on tracks all over the world, and, if you made sensible choices, have the depreciation of an iPhone make a car look like an investment. Meanwhile, everyone and their mother has an iPhone - there is no novelty to owning one.
Thus, until I start getting more out of an iPhone, I can't help but think how a Moto G and an extra $800 in pocket to spend on something else would give me so much more pleasure than the next iPhone.
Give me a $300-$400 Android phone with support for Project Treble and an unlocked bootloader and we're talking. I'll put LineageOS on it: regular security updates, yearly OS updates and no crapware!
> Not excusing the price, but people these days spend multiple hours a day on their phones
That's my reasoning when I buy a new computer. I can buy a MBP for $2000, use it for 3 years and sell it used for $1000. $30 a month is a bargain considering I use it between 5-10 hours a day. I may pay a mac a little more (20%?) than the competition but it's worth it considering it's subjectively better (and objectively different, Mac OS / design / size -- arguably less and less so).
However, I'd never buy an iphone (or an expensive smartphone). Iphone users may disagree, but for what I've seen they provide almost the same experience as much cheaper phones (typically two times cheaper). Another issue I have with the price is that I don't feel confortable walking around with such a small expensive item. So easy to lose it or forget it.
That's my reasoning when I buy a new computer. I can buy a MBP for $2000, use it for 3 years and sell it used for $1000. $30 a month is a bargain considering I use it between 5-10 hours a day. I may pay a mac a little more (20%?) than the competition but it's worth it considering it's subjectively better (and objectively different, Mac OS / design / size -- arguably less and less so).
However, I'd never buy an iphone (or an expensive smartphone). Iphone users may disagree, but for what I've seen they provide almost the same experience as much cheaper phones (typically two times cheaper). Another issue I have with the price is that I don't feel confortable walking around with such a small expensive item. So easy to lose it or forget it.
Much of this logic is why I stopped buying new computers or phones. I'd rather use a $70 T440 that I've upgraded and know how to repair most everything on than haul a MBP that I'll need to get a pro to service, that also happens to have terrible ventilation. I mean, my last MBP literally cooked itself, comparatively this T440 has a giant grill that it rapidly removes heat through (though its 15w i5 doesn't make much).
You make it sound like the MBP is a weighty piece of burden compared to a dainty T440 (use a T440 vs. haul a MBP.)
And the part about cooking itself sounds like a manufacturing defect for which you should have gotten a replacement - in normal conditions it should just shut down, if temperatures get high enough that ventilation and throttling don't help.
And the part about cooking itself sounds like a manufacturing defect for which you should have gotten a replacement - in normal conditions it should just shut down, if temperatures get high enough that ventilation and throttling don't help.
My old MBP is heavier than my T440 by half a pound. I also never said that it shut itself down, just that it was consistently uncomfortably hot to be using, and I couldn't imagine attempting to use it to run a bunch of VMs like I use my T440 for.
I'm happy to have sold that MBP and put Apple far behind me, with the inflatable battery and high temps, it was on par with the $20 x100e I picked up last year (though that x100e was much lighter/smaller).
I'm happy to have sold that MBP and put Apple far behind me, with the inflatable battery and high temps, it was on par with the $20 x100e I picked up last year (though that x100e was much lighter/smaller).
> You make it sound like the MBP is a weighty piece of burden compared to a dainty T440 (use a T440 vs. haul a MBP.)
I made the mistake of buying a MBP to see what all the fuss was about and fantasize regularly about destroying it Office-Space style, "weighty piece of burden" is just about the nicest way you could put it
I made the mistake of buying a MBP to see what all the fuss was about and fantasize regularly about destroying it Office-Space style, "weighty piece of burden" is just about the nicest way you could put it
I kind of wanted to do that, for the hipster geek cred, but after retina screens, actually usable touchpads and operating system that just works and also is unix at the same time ... I just can't go back.
I have also looked at switching to Linux over OS X and the retina/hidpi alone stops any attempt. I actually had someone on here argue that no one needs retina, and that it didn’t make any difference visually!
GNOME works just fine on hidpi screens. I use it on my (2013) mbp and (2015) chromebook pixel and it looks great.
You do have to use wayland to get scaling across a low dpi external monitor to work, but that has been fairly painless these days (if your GPU is supported by the open source drivers).
You do have to use wayland to get scaling across a low dpi external monitor to work, but that has been fairly painless these days (if your GPU is supported by the open source drivers).
I do exactly the same but with X220s. With an SSD and Debian they make a great coding laptop. I buy stacks of them and just move the SSD across when the break.
Also means I can leave one in the office and have one at home then just move the SSDs between them.
Also means I can leave one in the office and have one at home then just move the SSDs between them.
That sounds so much easier than what I am doing with my laptop (macbook): I have to put it in my bag somewhere and take it out somewhere else and continue exactly where I left off every time. It is such a burden...
A friend of mine takes that approach, but the T440 has a whole unibody panel that takes a minute or so to remove. The T430 and T410s comparatively have nice little hatches where a single screw will let you pull the drive.
How do you like the X220s? I nabbed one for a friend a while back, seemed like a nice smaller form factor laptop, she rather liked it iirc. Good price too, think I paid $65 for it.
How do you like the X220s? I nabbed one for a friend a while back, seemed like a nice smaller form factor laptop, she rather liked it iirc. Good price too, think I paid $65 for it.
What sort of battery life do you get with these? My 4 year old MBA now gets around 6 hours while coding vs 10 when new.
I'm just passing the 6 hour 30 min mark, though my battery is a few years old. Its reporting as 75.8% capacity with 4% left, so another 20 minutes perhaps, gonna throw it on the dock here though.
I've got Atom open, Signal Desktop, Tor Browser Bundle (Youtube), Firefox with a few dozen tabs (Soundcloud, HN, etc). Couple spreadsheets too in LibreOffice, and Thunderbird & Transmission too. With a few of those closed, should be able to get some more battery life, but I don't feel in need of it.
I've got Atom open, Signal Desktop, Tor Browser Bundle (Youtube), Firefox with a few dozen tabs (Soundcloud, HN, etc). Couple spreadsheets too in LibreOffice, and Thunderbird & Transmission too. With a few of those closed, should be able to get some more battery life, but I don't feel in need of it.
The X220 is a great laptop, especially if you find one with the IPS screen (and no bright/dark spot defects).
This is exactly the reason I switched to Linux laptops on cases that I can open up and easily switch out any parts of need be.
iPhone provides software update much longer (typically two times longer) than any Android phones in the market, so it actually has longer life. If you plan to use it for a long time, it makes sense.
I agree if you plan to use iPhone for less than 2 years it's probably expensive.
I agree if you plan to use iPhone for less than 2 years it's probably expensive.
Not necessarily true - if you have the know how or know someone who does, you can run a custom rom on your Android device, Lineage is updated weekly for many devices and will easily provide many more years of life. Once it's set up it's pretty hands off too, so just knowing one person who can do it for you once is pretty much enough.
The official situation is slated to improve now with Android 8 separating the HAL and the rest of the OS more clearly it likely means that in a generation or two this won't even be a concern.
The official situation is slated to improve now with Android 8 separating the HAL and the rest of the OS more clearly it likely means that in a generation or two this won't even be a concern.
> Lineage is updated weekly for many devices
You see, right there you described why most people, myself included, aren't interested in that. I can't be bothered to care about weekly OS updates, I tolerate the 1-2 yearly updates to my android because as someone in the security industry I understand the need for updates but that's it. A phone isn't something I care about tinkering with, it's a tool and I want it to work well with as minimal maintenance getting in the way as possible. I couldn't even be bothered to root my current phone, much less install a different OS.
You see, right there you described why most people, myself included, aren't interested in that. I can't be bothered to care about weekly OS updates, I tolerate the 1-2 yearly updates to my android because as someone in the security industry I understand the need for updates but that's it. A phone isn't something I care about tinkering with, it's a tool and I want it to work well with as minimal maintenance getting in the way as possible. I couldn't even be bothered to root my current phone, much less install a different OS.
I find it ironic that you're in the security industry, yet have no interest in getting security updates as quickly as possible.
We're not talking about major updates here, we're talking about updates that take about 30 seconds to apply plus a reboot, once a week and you know you're always running the latest and greatest from a security standpoint. Most change nothing from a user perspective.
Of course, you're free to treat these updates as you like, I typically only patch about once a month or when there's a major remote vulnerability.
We're not talking about major updates here, we're talking about updates that take about 30 seconds to apply plus a reboot, once a week and you know you're always running the latest and greatest from a security standpoint. Most change nothing from a user perspective.
Of course, you're free to treat these updates as you like, I typically only patch about once a month or when there's a major remote vulnerability.
I'm not in the operations side of it, I'm on the development side: whether admins apply patches or not is not our problem :)
Like I said, doing weekly or monthly updates and reboots would be an extra concern that I'd rather not have. As it stands the only "management" burden my phone (I use an HTC 10 for reference) imposes on me is having to connect it to the charger every night; It's already more than I would like but unfortunately it doesn't have wireless charging.
As far as I'm concerned, for non-hobby stuff, the least management a device asks of me, the better it is because it's a few more things I don't have to bother taking care of.
Like I said, doing weekly or monthly updates and reboots would be an extra concern that I'd rather not have. As it stands the only "management" burden my phone (I use an HTC 10 for reference) imposes on me is having to connect it to the charger every night; It's already more than I would like but unfortunately it doesn't have wireless charging.
As far as I'm concerned, for non-hobby stuff, the least management a device asks of me, the better it is because it's a few more things I don't have to bother taking care of.
"I can buy a MBP for $2000, use it for 3 years and sell it used for $1000."
I've used a refurbed Thinkpad T420 for about a year now. It cost me $350 to buy, and I expect it to last at least 2-3 years. Less than $10 a month, and it's more than fast enough to do absolutely everything I need to do. Not too shabby for a 6 year old machine.
The only reason for buying a brand-new computer is if you absolutely need the highest end of computing power, or need the very newest peripheral ports for some reason.
I've used a refurbed Thinkpad T420 for about a year now. It cost me $350 to buy, and I expect it to last at least 2-3 years. Less than $10 a month, and it's more than fast enough to do absolutely everything I need to do. Not too shabby for a 6 year old machine.
The only reason for buying a brand-new computer is if you absolutely need the highest end of computing power, or need the very newest peripheral ports for some reason.
> So easy to lose it or forget it.
Or break it. After I broke my Nexus4's screen three times I gave up and bought some cheap Zenfone (and it cost as much as one screen repair for Nexus).
Or break it. After I broke my Nexus4's screen three times I gave up and bought some cheap Zenfone (and it cost as much as one screen repair for Nexus).
What might be interesting is if the iPhone X ends up being a device that combines more laptop-like features into a phone.
Better keyboard/mouse/display integration. Support for laptop-like apps. Then it could be worth laptop-like pricing.
Better keyboard/mouse/display integration. Support for laptop-like apps. Then it could be worth laptop-like pricing.
We carry these things on our bodies damn near most of the day. We use them in our down time to read books and news. To communicate with others and consume information in a matter of seconds. To remind ourselves of things occurring throughout the day. To keep track of grocery lists, diets, fitness activities, sleep cycles and etc. It's basically the first fully functional extension of our body. So, absolutely... why the hell not pay more? It's almost like paying slightly more for a bionic arm that will get you a little closer to truly experiencing the sense of touch you've been missing for years.
why not pay more ?
1) A CAN$100 phone gives you 75% of the experience, a CAN$250 gives your 95% of the experience
2) Android doesn't lock you to use a single app depot
3) Android doesn't require 2 or 3 login / password (iCloud + iTunes)
4) Android accounts work worldwide, it doesn't fail to log you in if you change countries (I had to re-create an AppleID when I moved to Canada because the US one no longer worked)
5) You don't have to use an extra step when migrating, just log-in et voila ! (ie. not iTunes shenanigans)
6) generally poor software full of UI glitches
7) No pressure sensitive touch-ID which fails to work with aging users (try to explain the concept to a +80 yo).
8) I can still use my $2 earplugs without an adapter
9) Android does not care what OS you use on your main desktop
10) MULTIPLE SIM ! Dual SIM phone is pretty much getting standard. I wish there was triple or quadruple SIM phones
11) External storage
12) Removable batteries
etc.
1) A CAN$100 phone gives you 75% of the experience, a CAN$250 gives your 95% of the experience
2) Android doesn't lock you to use a single app depot
3) Android doesn't require 2 or 3 login / password (iCloud + iTunes)
4) Android accounts work worldwide, it doesn't fail to log you in if you change countries (I had to re-create an AppleID when I moved to Canada because the US one no longer worked)
5) You don't have to use an extra step when migrating, just log-in et voila ! (ie. not iTunes shenanigans)
6) generally poor software full of UI glitches
7) No pressure sensitive touch-ID which fails to work with aging users (try to explain the concept to a +80 yo).
8) I can still use my $2 earplugs without an adapter
9) Android does not care what OS you use on your main desktop
10) MULTIPLE SIM ! Dual SIM phone is pretty much getting standard. I wish there was triple or quadruple SIM phones
11) External storage
12) Removable batteries
etc.
> No pressure sensitive touch-ID which fails to work with aging users (try to explain the concept to a +80 yo).
It can just be disabled in the phone settings.
It can just be disabled in the phone settings.
I wasn't really speaking about the touch-ID feature per-se, but the lack of physical feedback from the pressure sensitive home button, as you can last find on the iPhone 6/6S. My uncle had all the trouble in the world to use it. For such an expensive device, this is just not acceptable.
On the other hand, receiving timely security updates is nice. To me, saving a few bucks isn't worth using an unpatched phone.
Apple and other computer makers have tried the social standing thing too with their products, but thye have always failed. It only works up until certain point.
I do think that there are markets for $2,000, $3,000, $4,000 iphone, but they must provide functional enhancements over $1,000 model, be it insanely good camera, insanely good display, 1TB storage, or 50% more battery life in same form factor.
With computers and devices, it's more about practical utility.
So why doesn't Apple do this? Because the market for $2-$5,000 phone is too small, and given Apple's reliance on parts maker, they can only have so much competitive edge. (i.e. if they can do it, then so can Android)
I do think that there are markets for $2,000, $3,000, $4,000 iphone, but they must provide functional enhancements over $1,000 model, be it insanely good camera, insanely good display, 1TB storage, or 50% more battery life in same form factor.
With computers and devices, it's more about practical utility.
So why doesn't Apple do this? Because the market for $2-$5,000 phone is too small, and given Apple's reliance on parts maker, they can only have so much competitive edge. (i.e. if they can do it, then so can Android)
Even then, there will always be lower-tier iPhones and lower-tier "other" devices that will be cheaper and work just fine for most people, just like most people only need a Corolla, Camry, Civic, etc. for their daily car needs and not necessarily the newest BMW 3 or 5 series, etc.
Previously, if you bought a Plus, upgraded the storage you also hit the $1000 mark quite easily.
Apple can't do much wrong: removed the audio jack did not hurt iPhone sales. The new mac book pro, ridiculously priced, a very 'particular' keyboard, was the fastest selling laptop ever.
If you see the reactions on let's say, The Verge, on any post regarding new Apple products - it's insane.
So I think Apple is still in a very comfortable position to keep on doing this artificial pricing for the time being, and for the foreseeable future as well - and get away with it. Their tandem of hard & software, though much flawed, still seems to be worth the premium price for many people.
They have me because of OSX but I won't stand another crappy laptop of them anymore.
Apple can't do much wrong: removed the audio jack did not hurt iPhone sales. The new mac book pro, ridiculously priced, a very 'particular' keyboard, was the fastest selling laptop ever.
If you see the reactions on let's say, The Verge, on any post regarding new Apple products - it's insane.
So I think Apple is still in a very comfortable position to keep on doing this artificial pricing for the time being, and for the foreseeable future as well - and get away with it. Their tandem of hard & software, though much flawed, still seems to be worth the premium price for many people.
They have me because of OSX but I won't stand another crappy laptop of them anymore.
My wife has one of the new ones with the "particular" keyboard. I think it's okay (the keyboard), but it's pretty noisy.
The "particular" keyboard is actually quite good to use. I like the way I type on this one.
However it's not reliable. A single speck of dust under the keycap then you have misfires. Keys get mushy for no reason, get stuck etc. My b key does not work reliably now for example.
However it's not reliable. A single speck of dust under the keycap then you have misfires. Keys get mushy for no reason, get stuck etc. My b key does not work reliably now for example.
Yeah I really like the feel of it, but my "n" key has stopped working twice already (within a month of purchase!) - I've "massaged" it back to life both times with firm pressing. That reminds me I need to order compressed air from Amazon. Can I bill that to Apple I wonder
I disassembled "n" a couple weeks ago, not just removing the keycap, but the entire butterfly mechanism. Cleaned up then reattached using glue. Works fine now.
As far as I can tell, the mechanism is too fragile / shitty.
There is a single metal dome below the key which acts like the spring and actuator. Butterfly thing is there to keep the keycap in place and distribute pressure so if you hit a corner it directs that to the dome thingy. That metal dome seems to have an issue with heat as most people report problems when the device heats up. Maybe it expands. If you look at the contacts below it looks like there is too little margin for error.
I think this keyboard is gonna create a lot of issues in the long term.
As far as I can tell, the mechanism is too fragile / shitty.
There is a single metal dome below the key which acts like the spring and actuator. Butterfly thing is there to keep the keycap in place and distribute pressure so if you hit a corner it directs that to the dome thingy. That metal dome seems to have an issue with heat as most people report problems when the device heats up. Maybe it expands. If you look at the contacts below it looks like there is too little margin for error.
I think this keyboard is gonna create a lot of issues in the long term.
I hated it at first but started liking it after a few weeks.
9 months later I kind of hate it again. You get used to the short travel, and the clickiness is very pleasant. The problem I have now is that sometimes you can feel a click and it doesn't trigger - most commonly with the arrow keys. Also occasionally a few keys would "jam" and not fully click.
Overall my typing speed and accuracy has definitely decreased.
9 months later I kind of hate it again. You get used to the short travel, and the clickiness is very pleasant. The problem I have now is that sometimes you can feel a click and it doesn't trigger - most commonly with the arrow keys. Also occasionally a few keys would "jam" and not fully click.
Overall my typing speed and accuracy has definitely decreased.
Yeah, but it's 2 mm thinner. /s
It's so noisy that on a conference call, one can not take minutes without having to disable their own input mic.. haah
Yep, still doesn't get better than OSX.
as a user of both windows and mac os x, what do you truly like about mac os x that you prefer it so heavily over windows?
The macbook trackpad it is so wonderful. I'm watching something on youtube, I'll just flick it over to the apple tv by pressing airplay - it's magical. My backups go to a time capsule - install time a couple of minutes, it just works, it sits there in the cupboard and I never have to think about backups. When my phone rings and its across the room, I can answer on my Mac.
I seldom (never?) have to worry about reinstalling device drivers. Everything works, all the time, on my windows laptop somethings don't work and I have to do convoluted things to make them work - e.g. pdf's no longer open in adobe reader, I keep saying yes make adobe reader the default but it never works, I've never looked into it cause who cares. With my mac I seldom have to fiddle with something because it's not working - it is a lot smoother experience, with windows bits are broken everywhere and I just work around them.
Edit: oh also the 2d graphics are so much nicer and crisper - core graphics makes gdi/gdi+/direct2D a joke (I spend a lot of time writing graphics code), cocoa is superior.
I seldom (never?) have to worry about reinstalling device drivers. Everything works, all the time, on my windows laptop somethings don't work and I have to do convoluted things to make them work - e.g. pdf's no longer open in adobe reader, I keep saying yes make adobe reader the default but it never works, I've never looked into it cause who cares. With my mac I seldom have to fiddle with something because it's not working - it is a lot smoother experience, with windows bits are broken everywhere and I just work around them.
Edit: oh also the 2d graphics are so much nicer and crisper - core graphics makes gdi/gdi+/direct2D a joke (I spend a lot of time writing graphics code), cocoa is superior.
I'm a Mac user as well, but I can't say I like macOS. Just like every OS it accumulates brokenness and it has lots of quirks.
My reminder alerts are being triggered at arbitrary times. I followed every advice on the support forums. Nothing works. Now the recommendation is to reinstall macOS.
I have replaced the magic mouse with a wired Logitech mouse because bluetooth keeps draining the mouse battery too quickly. I wanted to buy a wired Apple keyboard for the same reason, but they no longer sell one without a number pad (which makes the keyboard far too wide)
After waking from sleep my Mac takes awfully long to become responsive. I just keep hitting those keys until they show up. Then I delete all the buffered keystrokes and start entering my password. Stupid, I know.
Don't get me started on Apple Mail...
Time capsule doesn't make much sense as a backup solution if its in the same physical place as the Mac itself. You're just one burglary or fire away from losing all your data. I use spideroak which works on any OS.
I like Swift, but Xcode is by far the worst IDE I have ever used. It keeps crashing. The much-vaunted "playgrounds" are a useless, annoying toy. It is slower than you think possible, always indexing something. It can't rename Swift functions and classes (This "advanced" feature is coming this month I think). It doesn't even have a built-in shortcut (or a mappable command) to delete the current line.
I haven't used Windows in many years and I have no idea if its any better. I guess I will try once my mac mini expires, because I'm certainly not going to hand over thousands to Apple for a MacBook or buy a "new" mini that has almost exactly the same specs as the one I bought 5 years ago.
What I like about macOS is that it rarely has driver issues (I did have one wi-fi issue a while ago though). That's what keeps me away from Linux.
My reminder alerts are being triggered at arbitrary times. I followed every advice on the support forums. Nothing works. Now the recommendation is to reinstall macOS.
I have replaced the magic mouse with a wired Logitech mouse because bluetooth keeps draining the mouse battery too quickly. I wanted to buy a wired Apple keyboard for the same reason, but they no longer sell one without a number pad (which makes the keyboard far too wide)
After waking from sleep my Mac takes awfully long to become responsive. I just keep hitting those keys until they show up. Then I delete all the buffered keystrokes and start entering my password. Stupid, I know.
Don't get me started on Apple Mail...
Time capsule doesn't make much sense as a backup solution if its in the same physical place as the Mac itself. You're just one burglary or fire away from losing all your data. I use spideroak which works on any OS.
I like Swift, but Xcode is by far the worst IDE I have ever used. It keeps crashing. The much-vaunted "playgrounds" are a useless, annoying toy. It is slower than you think possible, always indexing something. It can't rename Swift functions and classes (This "advanced" feature is coming this month I think). It doesn't even have a built-in shortcut (or a mappable command) to delete the current line.
I haven't used Windows in many years and I have no idea if its any better. I guess I will try once my mac mini expires, because I'm certainly not going to hand over thousands to Apple for a MacBook or buy a "new" mini that has almost exactly the same specs as the one I bought 5 years ago.
What I like about macOS is that it rarely has driver issues (I did have one wi-fi issue a while ago though). That's what keeps me away from Linux.
> I wanted to buy a wired Apple keyboard for the same reason, but they no longer sell one without a number pad (which makes the keyboard far too wide)
You can buy the wireless keyboard and plug in a lightning cable all the times. I don't recommend it, but it works just like a wired keyboard.
You can buy the wireless keyboard and plug in a lightning cable all the times. I don't recommend it, but it works just like a wired keyboard.
For me personally, 90% of it boils down to "unix baseline". I do most of my development work remotely on linux servers of varying flavors, but OSX + homebrew means that I can pretty easily use the tools I write for one machine on my local systems as well.
Beyond that, I've just got a lot of random applications for streamlining my workflow and day-to-day usage that would take a long time to find equivalent tools for, and I'm long past the days when "spending a weekend fucking with settings" was something I want to do. OSX, I just back up my machines and if/when I need to replace them, it's just "plug the new one into the backup drive, restore from backup".
Maybe someday the year of the linux desktop will actually happen, but I'm not holding my breath either.
Beyond that, I've just got a lot of random applications for streamlining my workflow and day-to-day usage that would take a long time to find equivalent tools for, and I'm long past the days when "spending a weekend fucking with settings" was something I want to do. OSX, I just back up my machines and if/when I need to replace them, it's just "plug the new one into the backup drive, restore from backup".
Maybe someday the year of the linux desktop will actually happen, but I'm not holding my breath either.
For one, Mac OS does multiple displays and DPIs right. The trackpad is also solid. Plus the unix stuff that's always been there and isn't some subsystem only available with certain versions of windows. Also, the boot up and sign in process sucks in Windows vs Mac. Once I'm given a mouse cursor post-signon I'm ready to go in Mac OS. With Windows, I've got to wait for the AV to load up and do it's "routine". Then there's the probability of Windows Updates working the first time.
And then there's the Windows telemetry stuff. Apple's actually talking about ways to incorporate identity anonymization (sp?) into its browser. They've stayed out of trying to reap side income off device usage in multiple ways.
And then there's the Windows telemetry stuff. Apple's actually talking about ways to incorporate identity anonymization (sp?) into its browser. They've stayed out of trying to reap side income off device usage in multiple ways.
Oh yes. I've had my internal 15" MBP display, an external 4K (so hi-DPI) and a 1080p TV via HDMI, and it all just works.
Windows since the Creators Update also does multiple displays and DPIs right.
By the way, support for that is completely non-existant on Linux.
By the way, support for that is completely non-existant on Linux.
"that" as in multi-monitor support? Multi-monitor works fine on my Plasma desktop since at least 2012. Can't comment on high-DPI, but from what I've heard it's in the "getting there" stage.
Multi-monitor works fine. Single monitor, high DPI is very tricky, and barely works, never consistently (like, GNOME looks fine, but Firefox looks tiny). Multi-monitor, where every monitor has a different DPI value, has absolutely no support.
I am using my Dell XPS 13 with a resolution of 1920x1080 (scaled from 3200x1800) for the internal display and an external display with native 1920x1080 and cannot confirm this. It works pretty well (GNOME3, Ubuntu 17.04). Firefox is not tiny. I did not change anything in my X config files.
You mean you changed the resolution of your internal screen with xrandr? Or does xrandr still report 3200x1800? If not, then this is not a HiDPI setup. HiDPI is (basically) when applications draw using internal coordinates that are not "1 screen pixel per logical pixel", but more than that.
No, I just changed the "Display settings" (right click on desktop) to 1920x1080.
xrandr reports the following:
Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 3840 x 1080, maximum 8192 x 8192 eDP-1 connected 1920x1080+1920+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 294mm x 165mm
xrandr reports the following:
Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 3840 x 1080, maximum 8192 x 8192 eDP-1 connected 1920x1080+1920+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 294mm x 165mm
[deleted]
Well, for starters:
- That it has Unix and its tools underneath
- That app guis look consistently good on it (although I will admit that Windows has caught up to Mac OS X in this regard)
- That I don't have to worry about catching viruses as easily when browsing the Internet. Yes, I know there are viruses for Mac, but I've not come across them. Not the same with Windows. In fact, I made the switch after catching a nasty one using Windows Vista and losing more than half of my stuff.
- A corollary is not having to use Antivirus on a Mac
- That even though Macs have little in terms of specs, that the OS doesn't fucking lag something fierce. Last Windows I used, Windows 8, was still a memory hog for a machine having twice the RAM as my Mac. It was a work machine, not a personal machine.
And Most importantly, that I don't have to worry about maintaining the machine for all the aforementioned reasons and that I just get stuff done.
- That it has Unix and its tools underneath
- That app guis look consistently good on it (although I will admit that Windows has caught up to Mac OS X in this regard)
- That I don't have to worry about catching viruses as easily when browsing the Internet. Yes, I know there are viruses for Mac, but I've not come across them. Not the same with Windows. In fact, I made the switch after catching a nasty one using Windows Vista and losing more than half of my stuff.
- A corollary is not having to use Antivirus on a Mac
- That even though Macs have little in terms of specs, that the OS doesn't fucking lag something fierce. Last Windows I used, Windows 8, was still a memory hog for a machine having twice the RAM as my Mac. It was a work machine, not a personal machine.
And Most importantly, that I don't have to worry about maintaining the machine for all the aforementioned reasons and that I just get stuff done.
Like another user mentioned: the trackpad. Particularly the software aspect of it.
I have a personal 2012 macbook air and a lenovo thinkpad whatever from work. If I have to use the trackpad on windows I'm miserable. It's just so bad, the OS itself isn't made with it in mind: things like dragging and click-holding don't work anywhere near as well as it does on the macbook, the multi finger gestures are a miserable experience; I spend most of my time frustrated that I don't have a mouse. Compare it to the macbook: I do have a magic mouse somewhere but I haven't used in years; it offers me no better experience than that amazing trackpad support does.
This isn't even related to trackpad hardware because the experience was equally bad when I ran windows on the macbook using bootcamp. The Windows trackpad experience is just years behind OSX.
edit: as a related sidenote, I'm planning on dumping the macbook next year becase it's aging (4gb ram doesn't cut anymore). I'm planning on replacing it with a MS Surface; I found that touchscreen+pen are a suitable replacement for the macbook trackpad when you're on the go for my type of usage.
I have a personal 2012 macbook air and a lenovo thinkpad whatever from work. If I have to use the trackpad on windows I'm miserable. It's just so bad, the OS itself isn't made with it in mind: things like dragging and click-holding don't work anywhere near as well as it does on the macbook, the multi finger gestures are a miserable experience; I spend most of my time frustrated that I don't have a mouse. Compare it to the macbook: I do have a magic mouse somewhere but I haven't used in years; it offers me no better experience than that amazing trackpad support does.
This isn't even related to trackpad hardware because the experience was equally bad when I ran windows on the macbook using bootcamp. The Windows trackpad experience is just years behind OSX.
edit: as a related sidenote, I'm planning on dumping the macbook next year becase it's aging (4gb ram doesn't cut anymore). I'm planning on replacing it with a MS Surface; I found that touchscreen+pen are a suitable replacement for the macbook trackpad when you're on the go for my type of usage.
I've recently started using Windows again on a gaming computer. Here are the problems I found, that felt "ugh, Windows":
- I'm now used to the "inverse mouse scrolling". To enable this for my mouse (logitech something?) I needed to edit the registry. Every time I plug it into a new USB port it's now a new device with a new registry entry to hack.
- I installed the various device drivers that came with my hardware. The Realtek on-motherboard network card had some driver, which actually stopped the hardware from working - Microsoft's own standard driver was better. But every time I rebooted, Windows would helpfully install the "updated" driver from it's local cache. I ended up fixing this by setting the permissions on some c:\windows\system32 file to such that the system itself could not update it
I'm also not yet familiar with the changes to the Start menu and Windows Explorer, so those also feel confusing. But it's a gaming computer, I turn it on, play games, then turn it off. Presumably if it was a development workstation I'd have more opinions on the rest of it.
- I'm now used to the "inverse mouse scrolling". To enable this for my mouse (logitech something?) I needed to edit the registry. Every time I plug it into a new USB port it's now a new device with a new registry entry to hack.
- I installed the various device drivers that came with my hardware. The Realtek on-motherboard network card had some driver, which actually stopped the hardware from working - Microsoft's own standard driver was better. But every time I rebooted, Windows would helpfully install the "updated" driver from it's local cache. I ended up fixing this by setting the permissions on some c:\windows\system32 file to such that the system itself could not update it
I'm also not yet familiar with the changes to the Start menu and Windows Explorer, so those also feel confusing. But it's a gaming computer, I turn it on, play games, then turn it off. Presumably if it was a development workstation I'd have more opinions on the rest of it.
If the mouse supports Logitech Setpoint, it might be worth installing it - I believe it has the reverse scrolling setting at a device level (though I've not tested those conditions exactly).
Sounds like hell and Windows xp
Yeah but if you actually want a powerful machine it's your only option these days. Apple don't sell anything remotely at the level of PC hardware, even if money is no object.
I got forced into going Windows for GPU powered 3D rendering because Apple isn't interested in my business.
I got forced into going Windows for GPU powered 3D rendering because Apple isn't interested in my business.
I'd say you're Windowsing wrong if you changed system file permissions to stop a driver from installing.
I don't think OSX is superior, just the touchpad. It seems that most touchpads are insensitive to high precision touches (small movements), while the Apple touchpad is in a class of its own.
I'm also a user of both Windows 10 and Mac OS X. In no particular order, here's why I prefer OS X:
No advertising built into OS X on a fresh install. No default collection of usage. Faster boot times, faster wake up from sleep and faster shut down (ever been stuck on shutdown?). Forced updates, with a count down to save my work before a forced reboot (seriously, what decade is this?!). Windows Trackpads suck compared to Mac (even with the Precision Touchpad enabled laptops... and so much more.
No advertising built into OS X on a fresh install. No default collection of usage. Faster boot times, faster wake up from sleep and faster shut down (ever been stuck on shutdown?). Forced updates, with a count down to save my work before a forced reboot (seriously, what decade is this?!). Windows Trackpads suck compared to Mac (even with the Precision Touchpad enabled laptops... and so much more.
Windows has a lot of minor issues that really get in the way
Not to mention that since it's more popular every device manufacturer wants to "customize" your experience with some BS app, the amount of bad practices in app development is abundant (remember when Windows 2000/XP came out how long did it take developers to make their products run without being Administrator? And then with Vista?)
MS helps developers, shames them sometimes (IIRC Vista had a "Windows is not shutting down because of this app ) and sometimes "virtualizes" things so developers can still not clean up after themselves, but it gets old.
Not to mention that since it's more popular every device manufacturer wants to "customize" your experience with some BS app, the amount of bad practices in app development is abundant (remember when Windows 2000/XP came out how long did it take developers to make their products run without being Administrator? And then with Vista?)
MS helps developers, shames them sometimes (IIRC Vista had a "Windows is not shutting down because of this app ) and sometimes "virtualizes" things so developers can still not clean up after themselves, but it gets old.
UX on both platforms are pretty horrendous. But windows, especially the newer versions, is even worse imo. It's way too "in your face" and has extra nonsense that adds no purpose. Changing settings is unnecessarily complicated unless you have already done it in the past. Tiles in the start menu. Shortcuts are less efficient than macOS (switching tabs, closing apps, etc). And more. Ofc you can customize these, but I'd rather not. And it takes me a good amount of time to research if 3rd party apps are safe and secure especially on windows
I only rarely have to use Windows but every time I'm just so annoyed at how terrible the file browser (Explorer) is. Why the heck are folders sorted on top of files? It makes no sense and means you can't just jump to filenames with the keyboard. No QuickLook (this is a huge one. browsing through files is made 10x faster with QuickLook). No column browser.
[deleted]
After recently doing a bit of research into a new smartphone, I begun to understand why people buy Iphones, even if they're really really expensive. Firstly, you can explain it away financially with monthly payments, like any phone through a provider, but the biggest pain point I had is proven reliability. Take any popular Android phone, and you'll see a history of unsolved hardware problems from the manufacturer, such as boot loops. I can't afford to have my phone just 'break' itself and have to deal with my provider or some such nonesense. It was a real problem looking through dozens and dozens of different phones and knowing that each one of them tried to re-invent the wheel in some way that will probably break.
In the end, I settled for a Moto Z Play, at the recommendation of a programming blog, and that it had excellent reviews on the outlets I could find it. But, even with that, I accidentally bought an international version from Amazon unknowingly until I tried to purchase accident protection from Motorola, and they had to direct me to Indian support, which their phoneline was offline for all the times I tried to call. After ordering the proper U.S. version through motorolas site, though, everything has been fine. But thats a lot of technical stuff and throwing direct money (no monthly payments) at a single item. I can understand why people would just go to their providers site, and order an Iphone after trying, or not trying, to do research into smartphones.
For reference, I was able to return the international version even though I had used it for a week or so, and once refunded bought the U.S. one. Motorola tries to provide a monthly payment mechanism through 'Affirm', but Affirm was... Firm in that I didn't have a checking account in my bank, because my bank gives it a different name (though still is a checking.). The main saving grace of motorola is that AFAIK, their accident protection can send me a new phone before I have to send a broken one back in the future if(when) it does break.
And after all of this, still no 4G on it, because AT&T doesn't do that unless you have an 'AT&T' phone IMEI supposedly.
In the end, I settled for a Moto Z Play, at the recommendation of a programming blog, and that it had excellent reviews on the outlets I could find it. But, even with that, I accidentally bought an international version from Amazon unknowingly until I tried to purchase accident protection from Motorola, and they had to direct me to Indian support, which their phoneline was offline for all the times I tried to call. After ordering the proper U.S. version through motorolas site, though, everything has been fine. But thats a lot of technical stuff and throwing direct money (no monthly payments) at a single item. I can understand why people would just go to their providers site, and order an Iphone after trying, or not trying, to do research into smartphones.
For reference, I was able to return the international version even though I had used it for a week or so, and once refunded bought the U.S. one. Motorola tries to provide a monthly payment mechanism through 'Affirm', but Affirm was... Firm in that I didn't have a checking account in my bank, because my bank gives it a different name (though still is a checking.). The main saving grace of motorola is that AFAIK, their accident protection can send me a new phone before I have to send a broken one back in the future if(when) it does break.
And after all of this, still no 4G on it, because AT&T doesn't do that unless you have an 'AT&T' phone IMEI supposedly.
So basically your own telecom operator is preventing you from using yourn own phone? How do you people tolerate that?
My SO actually has the Moto Z Play and that phone has one feature that even none of the Apple iPhones had - the battery will easily live for three days, pretty much eliminating battery anxiety when traveling or staying somewhere for extended periods of time. It really feels wierd again to not have to worry about dragging cables, chargers and battery packs around on every minor event.
My SO actually has the Moto Z Play and that phone has one feature that even none of the Apple iPhones had - the battery will easily live for three days, pretty much eliminating battery anxiety when traveling or staying somewhere for extended periods of time. It really feels wierd again to not have to worry about dragging cables, chargers and battery packs around on every minor event.
> proven reliability
This. I buy iPhones because I know that every released version will be bought by several tens of millions. I don't want a smartphone that only a couple of million bought. If something is wrong with it I don't want to find a few unhappy souls on some forum complaining about the same thing, and a manufacturer that's already pushing ten new models. The "Just works" feature is worth so much to people.
Obviously some of the the flagship android phones are also big sellers, and also tend to "just work" - but those also cost about the same as the iPhone.
This. I buy iPhones because I know that every released version will be bought by several tens of millions. I don't want a smartphone that only a couple of million bought. If something is wrong with it I don't want to find a few unhappy souls on some forum complaining about the same thing, and a manufacturer that's already pushing ten new models. The "Just works" feature is worth so much to people.
Obviously some of the the flagship android phones are also big sellers, and also tend to "just work" - but those also cost about the same as the iPhone.
And also when you have 100K broken screens you have 100K of all the other parts that are cheap. I had to replace the lightning port on my iPhone and I called around for a few minutes and bought one locally for 5 bucks I replaced myself. That gets harder when you have 100s of random phones that are slightly different.
I'm wondering if Apple is going to come out with the equivalent of the Samsung DeX (1). I mean the new phone apparently has insane 6core SoC processing and wireless charging, which hints at a new kind of dock.
If I can replace a MacBook with an iPhone X + Apple screen then I'm definitely going to do that. Price point is higher compared to a single phone, but lower compared to phone + laptop. Solves almost all of the portability issues and makes app dev easier - which is where they want to push people anyway.
If they are going hard towards AR glasses, they need people to get used to having a single device for desktop and mobile. The glasses just become a peripheral at that point for early adopters.
1.http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/mobile-accessories/phones/d...
If I can replace a MacBook with an iPhone X + Apple screen then I'm definitely going to do that. Price point is higher compared to a single phone, but lower compared to phone + laptop. Solves almost all of the portability issues and makes app dev easier - which is where they want to push people anyway.
If they are going hard towards AR glasses, they need people to get used to having a single device for desktop and mobile. The glasses just become a peripheral at that point for early adopters.
1.http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/mobile-accessories/phones/d...
Nobody looks at a top of the line PC with the best graphics card(s) and say it's crossing a threshold. Everybody understands it's for a certain demographic.
According to rumors, they're still going to have various models and price points.
Also, iPhones are extremely economical because no other phones receive OS updates for as long. My iPhone 6, which cost $749 at the time, is coming up to 3 years old. It's still flawless, no speed issues or any issues. The only thing bad is that the battery isn't as good as before, but I still get through the day just fine.
I might upgrade this year just because "new & shiny", but I'll probably pass the iPhone 6 to family. And because it's still very good and receive updates, that means if I get 4 years of life out of it, its cost is actually only $375 when compared to other phones that stop getting updates 2 years in. That's really good!
According to rumors, they're still going to have various models and price points.
Also, iPhones are extremely economical because no other phones receive OS updates for as long. My iPhone 6, which cost $749 at the time, is coming up to 3 years old. It's still flawless, no speed issues or any issues. The only thing bad is that the battery isn't as good as before, but I still get through the day just fine.
I might upgrade this year just because "new & shiny", but I'll probably pass the iPhone 6 to family. And because it's still very good and receive updates, that means if I get 4 years of life out of it, its cost is actually only $375 when compared to other phones that stop getting updates 2 years in. That's really good!
> Also, iPhones are extremely economical. My iPhone 6, which cost $749 at the time, is coming up to 3 years old.
Uh, what? I'm on my second ~$70 Android smart phone in eight years. It's a tad slow, but we're talking about literally a few seconds of waiting, nothing truly inconvenient. I have honestly never been impressed by anything a $600+ iPhone can do beyond what my phone can. The only drawback is that it isn't compatible with Apple group texts, but that is more than made up for by the fact that I truly don't care if my phone gets lost or breaks (I back up my files, so I'm only out 70 bucks). I have no idea why people spend so much money on phones.
Uh, what? I'm on my second ~$70 Android smart phone in eight years. It's a tad slow, but we're talking about literally a few seconds of waiting, nothing truly inconvenient. I have honestly never been impressed by anything a $600+ iPhone can do beyond what my phone can. The only drawback is that it isn't compatible with Apple group texts, but that is more than made up for by the fact that I truly don't care if my phone gets lost or breaks (I back up my files, so I'm only out 70 bucks). I have no idea why people spend so much money on phones.
> It's a tad slow, but weren't talking about literally a few seconds of waiting, nothing truly inconvenient.
A few seconds of waiting is not "truly inconvenient"? I suppose you're either a zen master, or not doing much with the phone (possibly because it's "a tad slow").
For me, the phone is something I use constantly during the day, in lots of brief bursts. Few seconds of lag may be the difference between me staying in or leaving the flow. It would often make a significant fraction of the length of a single interaction with a phone. Those kinds of frustrations add up for me over time. Avoiding all of that is worth the $700, if I can afford it.
A few seconds of waiting is not "truly inconvenient"? I suppose you're either a zen master, or not doing much with the phone (possibly because it's "a tad slow").
For me, the phone is something I use constantly during the day, in lots of brief bursts. Few seconds of lag may be the difference between me staying in or leaving the flow. It would often make a significant fraction of the length of a single interaction with a phone. Those kinds of frustrations add up for me over time. Avoiding all of that is worth the $700, if I can afford it.
That can be a choice. If you know every interaction with your phone is going to be an exercise in patience, you'll be less likely to whip it out for every random thought or notification you get.
You remind me of a friend who, as an excuse for having bought a mobile with shit battery, used to say: "well this way I don't look at it that much!!!". Bollocks.
"A few seconds of waiting is not "truly inconvenient"? I suppose you're either a zen master, or not doing much with the phone (possibly because it's "a tad slow")."
No, he just isn't possessed by the ridiculous "must go faster, must go faster" mindset that plagues most people today.
A website takes more than a second to load? ARGH it must be down, now my day is ruined!
Just relax, if a small delay is enough to make you "leave the flow", maybe you need to reevaluate your priorities. If your "flow" is interrupted that easily, maybe it wasn't particularly important, anyway.
No, he just isn't possessed by the ridiculous "must go faster, must go faster" mindset that plagues most people today.
A website takes more than a second to load? ARGH it must be down, now my day is ruined!
Just relax, if a small delay is enough to make you "leave the flow", maybe you need to reevaluate your priorities. If your "flow" is interrupted that easily, maybe it wasn't particularly important, anyway.
> A website takes more than a second to load? ARGH it must be down, now my day is ruined!
Delays when fetching data on-line are understandable. Delays for simple off-line stuff are not. Especially unexpected delays - as in, the stuff used to work fast (in the past, or on my previous phone), but now it lags. Hell, I had a crap smartphone that liked to hang for 30+ seconds when trying to answer a phone call.
> No, he just isn't possessed by the ridiculous "must go faster, must go faster" mindset that plagues most people today.
You see, time, not money, is the most valuable thing a human being has - because it's hard-capped. Each of us has a choice on how to spend it; I choose not to let crappy consumer hardware waste mine when I can afford it.
Delays when fetching data on-line are understandable. Delays for simple off-line stuff are not. Especially unexpected delays - as in, the stuff used to work fast (in the past, or on my previous phone), but now it lags. Hell, I had a crap smartphone that liked to hang for 30+ seconds when trying to answer a phone call.
> No, he just isn't possessed by the ridiculous "must go faster, must go faster" mindset that plagues most people today.
You see, time, not money, is the most valuable thing a human being has - because it's hard-capped. Each of us has a choice on how to spend it; I choose not to let crappy consumer hardware waste mine when I can afford it.
You've made a bad choice in selecting which phone to buy, then.
My Moto X Play is still as fast as ever, the only app I ever experience any slowdown in is Google Maps, and it's always been like that.
Everything else is latency from logging in, fetching resources and so on.
My Moto X Play is still as fast as ever, the only app I ever experience any slowdown in is Google Maps, and it's always been like that.
Everything else is latency from logging in, fetching resources and so on.
Yes, I did. But then I also saw similar issues on other people's phones (both crappy ones and good, but _old_ ones - the latter probably can be blamed on flash degradation).
I would rather use a feature phone than a "slow" smartphone. Responsiveness shouldn't really be a extra feature, at least not for the basic apps(contacts, notes etc).
The entire computing world revolves around "must go faster, must go faster". How likely are you to stay on a website that takes a few seconds for each action? You're not. EVERYONE optimizes for it. Every 100MS of latency, Amazon loses 1% of revenue, and that's only ONE TENTH of a second. http://radar.oreilly.com/2008/08/radar-theme-web-ops.html
You may have the patience of a saint, but the majority of the world does not.
You may have the patience of a saint, but the majority of the world does not.
Well, there majority of the world consists of idiots, so there's that.
If two to three seconds of waiting (that's on the high end, and only for certain apps) is breaking your flow, you need to work on your attention span. That's ADHD territory.
Edit: For that matter, interacting with your phone for a few seconds at a time is probably an attention deficit issue in and of itself. I admit that it's common, but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem.
Edit: For that matter, interacting with your phone for a few seconds at a time is probably an attention deficit issue in and of itself. I admit that it's common, but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem.
Or, you're using snapchat, or instagram, or signal.
Or, any other IM program (including text messages). Or getting directions. Or checking departure time of a bus. Or switching a song that's playing. Or turning my Hue lights on/off. Or checking my account balance. Or paying with the phone.
Each of those actions should take no more than couple of seconds (occasionally, a couple dozen). And it can, if your phone is not lagging out after lockscreen or when trying to load an on-screen keyboard.
Each of those actions should take no more than couple of seconds (occasionally, a couple dozen). And it can, if your phone is not lagging out after lockscreen or when trying to load an on-screen keyboard.
All these things work just fine on these older devices. The pauses the original message mentioned are mostly encountered when starting or switching between applications. Once the application is running things work as intended. I use Telegram on that Motorola Defy I mentioned, no problems. It runs navigation apps (Navigon, OsmAnd~) without problems. It takes photo's of reasonable quality, those photo's can be edited on the device. I use it to play music on the device itself using Dsub (a Subsonic client) or Apollo, to control remote players using MPDroid (which controls mpd (music player daemon) on remote devices). It plays video from the likes of Youtube and Vimeo just fine. I use it to read books and publications, no problems. I even use it as a telephone every now and then...
It can take a few seconds to switch between any of these apps, especially when there are several of them running in the background. Would a new device be faster? Sure it would. Will I buy a new device sometime in the future? Sure, when this device kicks the bucket or another device shows up which offers the same feature set (good performance (compared to current devices), good battery, waterproof and sorta-shockproof yet still looks like a normal device instead of some prop from a B-movie). Do I feel like I'm missing out on something by using a 6 year old phone? No, I do not.
It can take a few seconds to switch between any of these apps, especially when there are several of them running in the background. Would a new device be faster? Sure it would. Will I buy a new device sometime in the future? Sure, when this device kicks the bucket or another device shows up which offers the same feature set (good performance (compared to current devices), good battery, waterproof and sorta-shockproof yet still looks like a normal device instead of some prop from a B-movie). Do I feel like I'm missing out on something by using a 6 year old phone? No, I do not.
Well, if you use a 6-years-old phone and it works for you, then by all means, stick to it. I would, too.
In my case it's not about chasing the newest features and highest resolutions - it's about certainty of getting a quality product. I no longer want to risk getting a shitty, laggy phone, or a phone that turns into one after few months. I consider it not worth the frustration it causes in daily usage.
In my case it's not about chasing the newest features and highest resolutions - it's about certainty of getting a quality product. I no longer want to risk getting a shitty, laggy phone, or a phone that turns into one after few months. I consider it not worth the frustration it causes in daily usage.
[deleted]
> It's a tad slow, but we're talking about literally a few seconds of waiting, nothing truly inconvenient.
Few seconds waiting for what? There's a big difference between a few seconds waiting for an app to load and, say, for it to register that you've tapped a key on its on-screen keyboard.
Few seconds waiting for what? There's a big difference between a few seconds waiting for an app to load and, say, for it to register that you've tapped a key on its on-screen keyboard.
[deleted]
There's not much to understand why people spend a fortune on phones every few years. These days it's more because of the status of owning the latest and greatest device (nothing wrong with that as people are entitled to do whatever they tf they want to do). Like everything else really.
I mean my wife is still using my iPhone 3Gs (8 years old), so I get there are different needs. That's exactly my point.
Would you make the argument that everyone should be using $200 chromebooks?
If not, then why would one make the argument that anything more expensive than a chromebook is crossing some kind of threshold?
Would you make the argument that everyone should be using $200 chromebooks?
If not, then why would one make the argument that anything more expensive than a chromebook is crossing some kind of threshold?
> "I get there are different needs."
What are those different needs? What do the top end phones do that the mid range phones do not, other than take better photos? Battery life is comparable, screen size is comparable, they run the same apps. I'm struggling to think of a single reason (other than the camera) why people buy high end phones anymore. There used to be a big difference in quality, but that gap has pretty much evaporated.
What are those different needs? What do the top end phones do that the mid range phones do not, other than take better photos? Battery life is comparable, screen size is comparable, they run the same apps. I'm struggling to think of a single reason (other than the camera) why people buy high end phones anymore. There used to be a big difference in quality, but that gap has pretty much evaporated.
Go to an Apple Store and see them all side-by-side. What makes those devices what they are are the high end devices on the next table over.
The advances very much do trickle down. Whether you would personally buy it or not.
The advances very much do trickle down. Whether you would personally buy it or not.
That's a non-answer. I'm asking people who buy high end phones why they pay extra. A phone with faster processor and more memory can't be the only reason people pay extra for these devices, which is all I'd get from comparing specs.
When was the last time that phone got a security patch?
I don't mean to sound utterly petty, but most security threats these days seem to be external to the device you are using.
Yes it sucks when a windows xp machine catches a massive virus from a random website.
But here I am with an iphone 5 that cost me $xxx, it gets updates that slow the phone down and break a lot of functionality, and my ssn isn't keylogged from my device, it's just leaked by someone else!
Now luckily my passwords aren't being keylogged but- wait! damnit!
Yes it sucks when a windows xp machine catches a massive virus from a random website.
But here I am with an iphone 5 that cost me $xxx, it gets updates that slow the phone down and break a lot of functionality, and my ssn isn't keylogged from my device, it's just leaked by someone else!
Now luckily my passwords aren't being keylogged but- wait! damnit!
> most security threats these days seem to be external to the device you are using.
It depends. From the top of my head, the smartphone is the most common second factor, so an attacker that's on your smartphone may be able to log onto most services that have 2FA. Or alternatively, they can DoS your own attempts to log into these services by deleting SMS, or just sending the phone into a reboot loop. (Of course, "targeted DoS" is not in everyone's threat model. But still, I have more peace of mind using a dedicated TAN generator device instead of my phone.)
It depends. From the top of my head, the smartphone is the most common second factor, so an attacker that's on your smartphone may be able to log onto most services that have 2FA. Or alternatively, they can DoS your own attempts to log into these services by deleting SMS, or just sending the phone into a reboot loop. (Of course, "targeted DoS" is not in everyone's threat model. But still, I have more peace of mind using a dedicated TAN generator device instead of my phone.)
Diminishing returns kick in at a remarkably low price point, especially outside the US.
$250 gets you a Xiaomi Mi A1 - a phone with a 1080p display, a full metal body, 4GB of RAM, 64GB of flash, a fast 8-core processor and guaranteed software updates directly from Google.
http://www.mi.com/in/mi-a1/
Is a $750 iPhone really three times better than that phone? Is it even 5% better? If I were an Apple shareholder, I'd be giving some serious thought to Apple's future in the growing middle-income economies. Apple are clearly going gangbusters right now, but I'm highly sceptical about their continued relevance.
$250 gets you a Xiaomi Mi A1 - a phone with a 1080p display, a full metal body, 4GB of RAM, 64GB of flash, a fast 8-core processor and guaranteed software updates directly from Google.
http://www.mi.com/in/mi-a1/
Is a $750 iPhone really three times better than that phone? Is it even 5% better? If I were an Apple shareholder, I'd be giving some serious thought to Apple's future in the growing middle-income economies. Apple are clearly going gangbusters right now, but I'm highly sceptical about their continued relevance.
> Is a $750 iPhone really three times better than that phone? Is it even 5% better?
Yes, it is. Three times better might be an exaggeration, but it has unique features that basically no other phone has currently, and that's worth different things to different people.
Yes, it is. Three times better might be an exaggeration, but it has unique features that basically no other phone has currently, and that's worth different things to different people.
It is better. The MacOS/iMessage/Facetime/Time machine ecosystem is is pretty awesome, and if you don't want to spend your time and effort trying to fix Windows BS and removing their malware, then an extra thousand or two is worth it. Plus, if something goes wrong, you get great customer service at the Apple Store.
I've done the Windows/Android thing, it's a pain in the ass to keep up with all the stuff. As I get older, I just need my things to work (especially smartphone and computer) and I'm willing to pay a premium. I don't even want to have to research what I'm buying, and Apple has been executing on that for quite a few years now.
I've done the Windows/Android thing, it's a pain in the ass to keep up with all the stuff. As I get older, I just need my things to work (especially smartphone and computer) and I'm willing to pay a premium. I don't even want to have to research what I'm buying, and Apple has been executing on that for quite a few years now.
I'm in exactly the same boat. I've done IT for enough years, I do it as a job, when I come home I don't want to do it anymore. I refuse to fix the computer problems of anyone outside of my immediate family unless I'm getting paid, and no one pays me to do my own computer maintenance.
I switched from a custom-built desktop PC to a laptop then to a Macbook a while back. I switched from an Android phone with super heavy customization and a flashed ROM to a Windows Phone (and after that platform died, an iPhone). Did I give up some flexibility? Yes. Did I spend more money? Yes. But I made a conscious choice to do so because I hate to be my own IT guy.
If I need a new computer, I don't comparison shop to see if Lenovo or Asus or Acer or HP has the best features for the price or reliability scores or any of that. I buy the latest Macbook. If I need a new cell phone, I don't look up who the best is. I buy an iPhone. I pay a little bit more for peace of mind. It makes me happy.
I switched from a custom-built desktop PC to a laptop then to a Macbook a while back. I switched from an Android phone with super heavy customization and a flashed ROM to a Windows Phone (and after that platform died, an iPhone). Did I give up some flexibility? Yes. Did I spend more money? Yes. But I made a conscious choice to do so because I hate to be my own IT guy.
If I need a new computer, I don't comparison shop to see if Lenovo or Asus or Acer or HP has the best features for the price or reliability scores or any of that. I buy the latest Macbook. If I need a new cell phone, I don't look up who the best is. I buy an iPhone. I pay a little bit more for peace of mind. It makes me happy.
> Also, iPhones are extremely economical because no other phones receive OS updates for as long.
Good point. Also they sell extremely well on the second-hand market.
Good point. Also they sell extremely well on the second-hand market.
This is how I roll. Buy iPhone. Get AppleCare. When the AppleCare is done, sell it and buy a new one. Resale covers the AppleCare. If I break it, I pay the excess and walk away with a new handset the same day.
This feeds the scond hand market.
If I bust an android phone I lose it for three to four weeks, have to buy a stopgap phone and tend to end up with a botched repair from a 3rd party repairer the vendor have hired. On top of that the OS updates usually stop after a year and roll out about a month after they are announced unless I buy a Nexus which is completely non repairable anyway.
This feeds the scond hand market.
If I bust an android phone I lose it for three to four weeks, have to buy a stopgap phone and tend to end up with a botched repair from a 3rd party repairer the vendor have hired. On top of that the OS updates usually stop after a year and roll out about a month after they are announced unless I buy a Nexus which is completely non repairable anyway.
I see your 3 year young iPhone and raise my 6 year old Motorola Defy. I bought it new in 2011 for about 1/4 of what the then-current iPhone would have cost. It still works flawlessly, the battery is fine as well (~5 days of normal use on a single charge or ~7 hours of screen time). If the battery were to fail I could just replace it, no tools required.
Oh, the thing is waterproof and 'shock-proof' (although the latter is to be taken with a grain of salt, my wife managed to break the glass on hers after about three years).
In other words, it does not take an expensive iPhone to last longer than a contract period. Well-built phones can last a long time, much longer than the 2 years which most people seem to consider as normal.
Oh, the thing is waterproof and 'shock-proof' (although the latter is to be taken with a grain of salt, my wife managed to break the glass on hers after about three years).
In other words, it does not take an expensive iPhone to last longer than a contract period. Well-built phones can last a long time, much longer than the 2 years which most people seem to consider as normal.
I see your 6 year young iPhone and raise my 14 year old Nokia 1100. I bought it new in 2003 80~ dolla. It still works flawlessly, the battery is fine as well (~31 days of normal use on a single charge or ~16 hours of screen time). If the battery were to fail I could just replace it, no tools required.
Oh, the thing is bulletproof (although it must be taken with a grain of salt, chuck norrys managed to break the glass on his after about three years).
In other words, it does not take an expensive iPhone to last longer than a contract period. Well-built phones can last a long time, much longer than the 10 years which most people seem to consider as normal.
Oh, the thing is bulletproof (although it must be taken with a grain of salt, chuck norrys managed to break the glass on his after about three years).
In other words, it does not take an expensive iPhone to last longer than a contract period. Well-built phones can last a long time, much longer than the 10 years which most people seem to consider as normal.
I get that this might be a great "call other people with voice" phone, but most people use their phones as web browsers or, in the simplest case, as a chat application runner. This comparison doesn't add much to the spectrum of discussion here
Perhaps if the 1100 had WhatsApp we can talk about this comparison, but otherwise this is like comparing your phone battery life to a flashlight's. Sure, a flashlight will last longer for the light, but I still like use the light on my phone because it's a thing I use for other things as well.
Perhaps if the 1100 had WhatsApp we can talk about this comparison, but otherwise this is like comparing your phone battery life to a flashlight's. Sure, a flashlight will last longer for the light, but I still like use the light on my phone because it's a thing I use for other things as well.
Well, guess what, my elderly Nokia actually has a browser, no whatsapp but then again I wouldn't use that even if my phone supported it.
Alas, if I still had my Nokia 1100 from a decade ago, it would now be useless to me - not because the device has failed, but because Australia no longer has GSM/2G phone networks as of this year...
...actually, it wouldn't quite be useless - I could still play Snake!
...actually, it wouldn't quite be useless - I could still play Snake!
> chuck norrys
If you’re going to try to capitalize on an internet meme, at least try to do the job properly.
If you’re going to try to capitalize on an internet meme, at least try to do the job properly.
That misses a key point I was making: OS updates.
Yes, I too have a Nexus 4 (bought in 2012) and it still works fine. But no more updates. I don't consider that on par with say my previous work laptop, which was also 3 years before I upgraded.
I also own a Moto E (2nd Gen, $60-ish) and bought a Moto G+ for my brother this year, but I can't count on them to receive OS updates for as long.
Yes, I too have a Nexus 4 (bought in 2012) and it still works fine. But no more updates. I don't consider that on par with say my previous work laptop, which was also 3 years before I upgraded.
I also own a Moto E (2nd Gen, $60-ish) and bought a Moto G+ for my brother this year, but I can't count on them to receive OS updates for as long.
Except you are comparing a 749$ phone with a 220$ and 60$ ones.
You could buy a new Moto G every 2 years and you would still have an up-to-date phone that is more economical than an iPhone, if OS-updates are your main worry (on average, I believe Apple supports devices up to 5 years, which objectively is a lot).
That without considering how well old phones work with newer OSs, my iPhone 4 did technically work with the last supported update, but the performance hit was so big it made it a pain to use.
You could buy a new Moto G every 2 years and you would still have an up-to-date phone that is more economical than an iPhone, if OS-updates are your main worry (on average, I believe Apple supports devices up to 5 years, which objectively is a lot).
That without considering how well old phones work with newer OSs, my iPhone 4 did technically work with the last supported update, but the performance hit was so big it made it a pain to use.
Are you saying there are no flagship android phones or the flagship phones get longer official support? In the past I don't think the Samsung Galaxies got more than 2 years support. And they weren't exactly cheap.
So why buy the expensive Android phone when the low cost ones are really good for that price point and you can just buy another one with the money you save?
So why buy the expensive Android phone when the low cost ones are really good for that price point and you can just buy another one with the money you save?
Okay, but why do we need "software updates"? If the phone still works and is able to do the job what difference does it make?
I had a Moto G for over 3 years that cost $150 in 2014 and which continued to work perfectly with zero updates (Android 4.4) during that period.
It finally died last month when I tried to recharge it on an USB cable that I wired backwards (on a motorcycle). Replaced it with a $120 Lenovo that's fantastic, does everything I could think of and more.
I think people who are ready to buy an iPhone for over $1000 would in fact pay any price; Apple should try to sell those for $2500 and see what happens.
For the rest of us, a $120 Android phone is more than enough.
I had a Moto G for over 3 years that cost $150 in 2014 and which continued to work perfectly with zero updates (Android 4.4) during that period.
It finally died last month when I tried to recharge it on an USB cable that I wired backwards (on a motorcycle). Replaced it with a $120 Lenovo that's fantastic, does everything I could think of and more.
I think people who are ready to buy an iPhone for over $1000 would in fact pay any price; Apple should try to sell those for $2500 and see what happens.
For the rest of us, a $120 Android phone is more than enough.
> Okay, but why do we need "software updates"? If the phone still works and is able to do the job what difference does it make?
Yes, maybe not updates as such but we certainly need security patches. Any network connected device does and phones are more connected than most, frequently sharing networks with strangers or friends that aren't tech savy enough to keep their environment secure..
Yes, maybe not updates as such but we certainly need security patches. Any network connected device does and phones are more connected than most, frequently sharing networks with strangers or friends that aren't tech savy enough to keep their environment secure..
Most of my family members (ie. >70yo. non tech folks) skip all update altogether, security or not. The argument is that updates introduce features changes which bother their experience and force them to figure out where everything is.
In layman terms, security updates are seen as trojan horse for larger updates they don't want.
In layman terms, security updates are seen as trojan horse for larger updates they don't want.
> If the phone still works and is able to do the job what difference does it make?
Windows XP still works, but that doesn't mean I would accept my computer being locked to that version of Windows.
Security updates are important, but so is the fact that you might want to run software on it that doesn't work with an older Android version.
Windows XP still works, but that doesn't mean I would accept my computer being locked to that version of Windows.
Security updates are important, but so is the fact that you might want to run software on it that doesn't work with an older Android version.
The Motos are well supported by aftermarket ROMs if you want updates. They might be among the cheapest with this.
Well I would like to see version 1.0 sofware that receives only security updates than the current status quo that we update a huge amount of your apps every week to change a button a bit. Every update there is a risk that something is going to be broken, even at the OS level. This is pathetic that we are going this direction.
As it stands I think that Nexus 5 is getting neither - no functionality or security updates
This is partly because of hardware manfacturers not supporting the latest version of Android. I think Google latest attempt to separate hardware drivers from Android itself should help a lot though the advantage will really be seen 2 years from now. If what Google is attempting works just like iOS and iPhone you will get the latest version of the OS barring a few hardware based features that your phone hardware doesn't support.
I have Nexus 4, too, and changed stock OS to LineageOS (previosly I've used cyanogenmod) and it works great, and now I have Android 7.1.2. and I receive weekly updates...
I realize that "flashing" the ROM is not what normal user would do, but it has become very easy to do, and it does extend the (usable) life of the phone..
I realize that "flashing" the ROM is not what normal user would do, but it has become very easy to do, and it does extend the (usable) life of the phone..
You can install LineageOS and get some updates , don't know how long but you get to extend the life of both phones.
AFAIK the Nexus 6P is still receiving updates.
I have one of those and an iPhone 7.
I have one of those and an iPhone 7.
My daughter was still using my 2010 iPhone 3GS until last December. It even still worked with the App Store. I'd dig it out and fire it up again but I'm not sure where it is. I ran out of family members to had it down to.
All my iPhones get handed down. The only one out of (er, 5 devices I think?) that's properly busted is my other daughter's 4s. It started falling apart at the seams this summer and is currently held together with sliced strips of sticky tape. Still, it's lasted 5 years and was still getting OS updates last year!
The thing with OS updates is, it was supposed to be the other way around. We were told that being open source meant Android phones could never be abandoned like this. Owners would have the freedom to update the OS themselves and would truly own their device and it's software. There's no way a proprietary OS vendor would provide long terms support because it would be uneconomical and deter upgrades to new devices, but with Android that wouldn't matter.
What an utter crock of shit that turned out to be! What went wrong? How can Android fans that bought that line not be storming the gates of the vendors and Google that sold them these lies for being deceived and betrayed? But no, it's all about the new Samsung (factory worker poisoning, embezzling CEO, explodaphone coverup) shiny. Just roll over and be grateful for your new dose of utopian Android open source goodness, the best possible phones in the best of all possible open source worlds.
Un-effing-believable.
All my iPhones get handed down. The only one out of (er, 5 devices I think?) that's properly busted is my other daughter's 4s. It started falling apart at the seams this summer and is currently held together with sliced strips of sticky tape. Still, it's lasted 5 years and was still getting OS updates last year!
The thing with OS updates is, it was supposed to be the other way around. We were told that being open source meant Android phones could never be abandoned like this. Owners would have the freedom to update the OS themselves and would truly own their device and it's software. There's no way a proprietary OS vendor would provide long terms support because it would be uneconomical and deter upgrades to new devices, but with Android that wouldn't matter.
What an utter crock of shit that turned out to be! What went wrong? How can Android fans that bought that line not be storming the gates of the vendors and Google that sold them these lies for being deceived and betrayed? But no, it's all about the new Samsung (factory worker poisoning, embezzling CEO, explodaphone coverup) shiny. Just roll over and be grateful for your new dose of utopian Android open source goodness, the best possible phones in the best of all possible open source worlds.
Un-effing-believable.
I'd be with you, except for Android's planned obsolescence. The reliance on third-parties to provide at most ~2/3 year security update paired with a dated and forked version of the Linux kernel gives me pause.
That's all set to change in Android Oreo.
https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2017/05/here-comes...
https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2017/05/here-comes...
Oreo will make it easier for maintainers to keep maintaining, but definitely won't guarantee they do so. Just because device drivers are now easier to keep up to date doesn't remove the huge monetary incentive to push users onto the next phone.
That is what AOSP and its derivatives are for, to pick up development when the manufacturer gives up. The Defy did not get updated past 2.3.6 by Motorola, anything after that (currently running 4.4.4 which is as far as this device will go) comes from there. Since Android apps are generally backward compatible for a long time, older Android devices can still run current apps. This is actually one of the advantages Android has over iOS, older iDevices are generally stuck at older apps as soon as Apple stops supporting the device.
First, you aren't talking about the average consumer anymore. If we're talking flashing operating systems, sideloading kernel updates and boot loaders in order to feel secure about your mobile device, then an older, vertically supported iOS device is probably a better bet.
Secondly, AOSP isn't forever. After your carrier/device-manufacturer drops support, Google isn't that far behind. If you're not getting AOSP drops for your device that work with device drivers then it's probably dead. There are a few brave souls willing to port modern Android to no-longer-google supported devices, but I wouldn't call that sure-fire security.
Thirdly, many AOSP derivatives and communities have niche motives that don't really align with the average user. New OS features, experimental "battery saving" kernel hacks and user-space root are commonplace where they really shouldn't be for the average, or arguably any, mobile user. Often devs get a new device and the community quietly moves on, dies, stops providing.
Mobile software is really in a sore place right now overall and neither duopoly is 100%. The incentives aren't aligned to the consumer.
Secondly, AOSP isn't forever. After your carrier/device-manufacturer drops support, Google isn't that far behind. If you're not getting AOSP drops for your device that work with device drivers then it's probably dead. There are a few brave souls willing to port modern Android to no-longer-google supported devices, but I wouldn't call that sure-fire security.
Thirdly, many AOSP derivatives and communities have niche motives that don't really align with the average user. New OS features, experimental "battery saving" kernel hacks and user-space root are commonplace where they really shouldn't be for the average, or arguably any, mobile user. Often devs get a new device and the community quietly moves on, dies, stops providing.
Mobile software is really in a sore place right now overall and neither duopoly is 100%. The incentives aren't aligned to the consumer.
Lineage OS is pretty easy on my nexus 6. Unlocking the bootloader was the hardest part, which is literally "fastboot OEM unlock"
So yeah its hard. YMMV.
So yeah its hard. YMMV.
I agree, it's not hard. However, I know some people who just can't grasp how to set up a mail account or even use Dropbox. For them, unlocking a bootloader is nigh on impossible.
I have gone down this path and then realised that a. I hate having to flash my phone every so often to keep it updated and b. the time I would have to spend flashing phones is more expensive than the price different between an android phone and an iPhone.
Does it still get updates though?
In 2011 I bought a Motorola Droid 2 and I it's been one of the best phones I've used, but I don't think I've ever got any system update. It's been stuck on 2.1 forever.
In 2011 I bought a Motorola Droid 2 and I it's been one of the best phones I've used, but I don't think I've ever got any system update. It's been stuck on 2.1 forever.
The original iPhone which I bought 10 years ago is still in daily use (by a person who only needs voice & sms).
If you install a more recent version of Android (such as 4.4) on the Defy (it shipped with Android 2.3 or so), it will be too slow for use (for my taste,anyway).
I tried it with a faster Defy+.
Even with Android 4.4 it will be a very insecure phone. With Android 2.3 it will be laughably insecure. Visit one wrong webpage and your phone is owned. No thanks.
Even with Android 4.4 it will be a very insecure phone. With Android 2.3 it will be laughably insecure. Visit one wrong webpage and your phone is owned. No thanks.
In what way would this be "a very insecure phone"? It runs Android 4.4.4 just fine. I patched the one glaring bug ('Stagefright'), it runs the latest browsers (Firefox/Fennec, Lightning, PB) without problems.
While there is lots of talk about 'Android being insecure' it is hard to find actual examples of Android devices which are used in a sensible way (i.e. which do not get fed whatever APK just downloaded from getfreestuff.cooldoodz.biz) being exploited.
While there is lots of talk about 'Android being insecure' it is hard to find actual examples of Android devices which are used in a sensible way (i.e. which do not get fed whatever APK just downloaded from getfreestuff.cooldoodz.biz) being exploited.
Well, if you haven't fixed CVE-2015-3864, CVE-2015-3876 and CVE-2015-6602 chances are you are still vulnerable by visiting a wrong web page.
Just look at the monthly security fix notes. There are critical vulnerabilities getting fixed every month.
Here are more critical ones: CVE-2017-0764, CVE-2017-0756 from the September patchlevel that also affects Android 4.4.4. See https://source.android.com/security/bulletin/2017-09-01
In August 2017, three more. In July one. In May another two. Still not convinced?
Just look at the monthly security fix notes. There are critical vulnerabilities getting fixed every month.
Here are more critical ones: CVE-2017-0764, CVE-2017-0756 from the September patchlevel that also affects Android 4.4.4. See https://source.android.com/security/bulletin/2017-09-01
In August 2017, three more. In July one. In May another two. Still not convinced?
My daughter was still using my 2010 iPhone 3GS until last December. It even still worked with the App Store. I'd dig it out and fire it up again but I'm not sure where it is.
All my iPhones get handed down. The only one out of (er, 5 devices I think?) that's properly busted is my other daughter's 4s. It started falling apart at the seams this summer and is currently held together with sliced strips of sticky tape. Still, it's lasted 5 years and was still getting OS updates last year!
The ting with OS updates is, it was supposed to be the other way around. We were told that being open source meant Android phones could never be abandoned like this. Owners would have the freedom to update the OS themselves and would truly own their device and it's software. There's no way a proprietary OS vendor would provide long terms support because it would be uneconomical and deter upgrades to new devices. What an utter crock of shit! What went wrong?
All my iPhones get handed down. The only one out of (er, 5 devices I think?) that's properly busted is my other daughter's 4s. It started falling apart at the seams this summer and is currently held together with sliced strips of sticky tape. Still, it's lasted 5 years and was still getting OS updates last year!
The ting with OS updates is, it was supposed to be the other way around. We were told that being open source meant Android phones could never be abandoned like this. Owners would have the freedom to update the OS themselves and would truly own their device and it's software. There's no way a proprietary OS vendor would provide long terms support because it would be uneconomical and deter upgrades to new devices. What an utter crock of shit! What went wrong?
My daughter was still using my 2010 iPhone 3GS until last December. It even still worked with the App Store. I'd dig it out and fire it up again but I'm not sure where it is.
All my iPhones get handed down. The only one out of (er, 5 devices I think?) that's properly busted is my other daughter's 4s. It started falling apart at the seams this summer and is currently held together with sliced strips of sticky tape. Still, it's lasted 5 years and was still getting OS updates last year!
All my iPhones get handed down. The only one out of (er, 5 devices I think?) that's properly busted is my other daughter's 4s. It started falling apart at the seams this summer and is currently held together with sliced strips of sticky tape. Still, it's lasted 5 years and was still getting OS updates last year!
Seriously, I actually consider iPhones to be some of the most cost-effective purchases I make. My mom is still happily using my old iPhone 5, and my iPhone 4 functions as a pretty nice media controller.
> It's still flawless, no speed issues or any issues. The only thing bad is that the battery isn't as good as before.
so, not flawless? i can replace the battery on my phone, which is very reassuring and also practical for times away from a charger.
so, not flawless? i can replace the battery on my phone, which is very reassuring and also practical for times away from a charger.
How often are you away from a charger or a portable power bank, really?
We can all imagine theoretical situations where one would need to swap batteries, but they're just that - theoretical. In practice you can either find/borrow/buy/steal a charger or you carry an USB powerbank with you if running out of battery is an issue for you.
We can all imagine theoretical situations where one would need to swap batteries, but they're just that - theoretical. In practice you can either find/borrow/buy/steal a charger or you carry an USB powerbank with you if running out of battery is an issue for you.
[deleted]
many times: hiking, on a boat, riding my motorcycle, on vacation in general. during these times i don't want to be unnecessarily tied to a portable charger. what's the point of having a portable phone at that point. simply changing out a battery is far more convenient.
so it's not theoretical at all. the person i replied to literally listed a reason why it's nice to be able to swap out a battery: their battery no longer works correctly.
so it's not theoretical at all. the person i replied to literally listed a reason why it's nice to be able to swap out a battery: their battery no longer works correctly.
You must be from the valley if you think that a 1000 phone is economical. That is laughable.
It's a defensible position, I live in the EU so proximity to heaps of expendable income is not as abundant than in the US middle-class. In the UK we had a saying "the poor man pays twice", meaning that if you buy a shitty rake and it breaks you have to go buy a new one.
This is kinda the case with phones too, you can buy a $450 phone with 2 years of updates, or a $700 with 5 years.
Which one is more economical over time?
This is kinda the case with phones too, you can buy a $450 phone with 2 years of updates, or a $700 with 5 years.
Which one is more economical over time?
False dichotomy. I just bought an Android phone over the weekend for $35 (on sale from $50) -- the LG K3. It has an older Android OS (Marshmellow) a little slow, the screen resolution isn't great, and the keyboard input is a little more fiddly than my Nexus 5X (which bricked, which is why I needed to get a new temp phone), but otherwise it works just fine.
Six years ago I paid $170 for an equivalent phone (older version of android than current, slower, less ram, space, etc). On sale. And used it for almost a year and a half. So the low-end has really gone down in price.
Six years ago I paid $170 for an equivalent phone (older version of android than current, slower, less ram, space, etc). On sale. And used it for almost a year and a half. So the low-end has really gone down in price.
OK, but how long did you receive patches after the purchase?
I'm talking mainly about phone support not whether it continues to function on a basic level or not.
I'm talking mainly about phone support not whether it continues to function on a basic level or not.
I mean I just bought the new one last weekend so it's too soon to tell. Google Play Services got updated again this morning, though.
The previous phone I think it was most of the time I owned it, but I didn't get any major OS upgrades (nor did I expect to), just minor updates.
It got slower over time but it never bricked, unlike my fancy new Nexus 5X, which completely bricked after I owned it for a year and a few months. Who cares about security updates and software patches when your phone completely breaks in less than the average upgrade cycle (obviously I don't mean all of these phones do, but apparently it was a common problem with Nexus 5X, I found out after the fact. I have a coworker on his 3rd one in two years).
The previous phone I think it was most of the time I owned it, but I didn't get any major OS upgrades (nor did I expect to), just minor updates.
It got slower over time but it never bricked, unlike my fancy new Nexus 5X, which completely bricked after I owned it for a year and a few months. Who cares about security updates and software patches when your phone completely breaks in less than the average upgrade cycle (obviously I don't mean all of these phones do, but apparently it was a common problem with Nexus 5X, I found out after the fact. I have a coworker on his 3rd one in two years).
> you can buy a $450 phone with 2 years of updates, or a $700 with 5 years.
> Which one is more economical over time?
My sub-100USD android apparently. What the heck kind of math do you have going on for "economical?"
> Which one is more economical over time?
My sub-100USD android apparently. What the heck kind of math do you have going on for "economical?"
Talking in terms of years of support.
$450 / 2 = $225/y of support.
$700 / 5 = $140/y of support.
$450 / 2 = $225/y of support.
$700 / 5 = $140/y of support.
Plenty of cheap but great Androids in the $200-300 range, just take a look at the Moto G5 Plus, for example.
Which, in the absolute best of cases, get security updates for one or two years, while the equivalent iPhone does for 4 or more. That's what he means by paying twice.
So your last generation iPhone still gets updates? I would not call that a excellent benchmark in my book.
The trouble with iOS devices is that they stop being usable the moment you can no longer update the OS in the way that most applications only support the newest OS (happened to several iPads here with e.g. Amazon app, Twitter, Youtube) - because updates roll out to the majority of users so fast compared to Android.
"stop getting updates 2 years in."
With Android most applications still support 4.X when Oreo comes out.
The trouble with iOS devices is that they stop being usable the moment you can no longer update the OS in the way that most applications only support the newest OS (happened to several iPads here with e.g. Amazon app, Twitter, Youtube) - because updates roll out to the majority of users so fast compared to Android.
"stop getting updates 2 years in."
With Android most applications still support 4.X when Oreo comes out.
It takes only one slip up to screw your security. One targeted attack that you don't notice because you're in a rush.
I love my MotoX 2013, but it never got updates (Sprint model, Sprint blamed Motorola, Motorola blamed Sprint); it's succeptible to Stagefright so I can't use it anymore. And it will never receive an update for it.
As much as we use our phones and as much personal information is on them, security updates should be first and foremost.
Yes, AOSP exists for some devices, but 9 times out of 10, something breaks when using it.
When Android moves to a new way of doing audio or video, drivers stop working, and some people try to come up with shims, but as others point out. The developer of it gets a new phone and the project dies.
My Nexus 5 (November 2013) hasn't gotten a security update since October 2016. My iPhone 5 (September 2012) just got an update to 10.3.3 in July.
Android devices are notorious for being slow to get updates, if you ever get them at all.
Yeah it can be cheaper to get an Android device, and I have quite a few, but they simply aren't up to the same standards that iPhones are.
I love my MotoX 2013, but it never got updates (Sprint model, Sprint blamed Motorola, Motorola blamed Sprint); it's succeptible to Stagefright so I can't use it anymore. And it will never receive an update for it.
As much as we use our phones and as much personal information is on them, security updates should be first and foremost.
Yes, AOSP exists for some devices, but 9 times out of 10, something breaks when using it.
When Android moves to a new way of doing audio or video, drivers stop working, and some people try to come up with shims, but as others point out. The developer of it gets a new phone and the project dies.
My Nexus 5 (November 2013) hasn't gotten a security update since October 2016. My iPhone 5 (September 2012) just got an update to 10.3.3 in July.
Android devices are notorious for being slow to get updates, if you ever get them at all.
Yeah it can be cheaper to get an Android device, and I have quite a few, but they simply aren't up to the same standards that iPhones are.
6 is almost 3 generations ago. The 7S/8 (we're not sure) comes out tomorrow. You can buy a 7 now. The 6S was released 2 years ago. The 6 was released 3 years ago.
I have a 5S and it still gets updates and works the same as the other poster described. I haven't even replaced the battery and still get a days usage.
I have an iPhone 6 (not 6s) and can still use pretty much "most applications that only support the newest OS".
The only things I can't do involve hardware-based features for things I don't have in my phone.
The only things I can't do involve hardware-based features for things I don't have in my phone.
[deleted]
[deleted]
If those new Nokias start being sold in my neck of the woods (Western Canada) I think I will pretty much just stop bothering with smartphones and just go with that compromise.
If I'm being honest with myself, I just need a damn phone and an ok camera. The rest are frivolities.
I can just continue using my table for the rest.
If I'm being honest with myself, I just need a damn phone and an ok camera. The rest are frivolities.
I can just continue using my table for the rest.
If by those new Nokias that aren't smartphones you mean the new 3310s (because Nokia also makes Android phones now,) you should be weary - the camera isn't exactly ok, not by modern standards, and most importantly, they only work on GSM (2G) networks that are being phased out in a lot of places.
> they only work on GSM (2G) networks
Haha you're kidding me? They shut down the 2G networks in Australia this year!
Haha you're kidding me? They shut down the 2G networks in Australia this year!
Actually, early reports look like they will be updated to (3G) when the phone comes to the U.S. market.
https://www.cnet.com/news/nokia-3310-3g-us-launch-fcc-filing...
https://www.cnet.com/news/nokia-3310-3g-us-launch-fcc-filing...
I can only assume that it was to save on licensing costs, especially now as Nokia has been broken into pieces. Nokia already had ultra low-cost 3G platform five years ago (e.g. Nokia 208/301/515), so the tech definitely exists.
Well, I read something that I take with a grain of salt and so should you, but here it is:
Those new Nokias are only carrying the brand name under typical chinese design and manufacturing process. The incentive would be to revive the brand in markets where Nokia had stronghold with its cheaper models and the average phone has poor quality. If that's the case it'd be very disappointing for what you are expecting.
Those new Nokias are only carrying the brand name under typical chinese design and manufacturing process. The incentive would be to revive the brand in markets where Nokia had stronghold with its cheaper models and the average phone has poor quality. If that's the case it'd be very disappointing for what you are expecting.
Based on reviews I've read online, the new Nokia phones are still build like tanks. So I wouldn't worry too much on that front.
Two immediate thoughts:
This is going to be for the hitherto-unavailable third tier of new iPhone: we'll have iPhone 8, iPhone 8 Plus, and iPhone X. I expect this is referring to the X. Which may well only be offered in a 256GB configuration. A jet black iPhone 7 Plus in 256 GB is $969 today. So this might not be a huge increase for the X. I fully expect 8 and 8 Plus models to mirror current pricing.
And second, we've seen this "high price" reporting with other releases, notably the Apple Watch IIRC. Reputable outlets were floating high prices, and Apple announced "normal" pricing at the event. Other comments here have talked about anchoring: this may be more of the same Apple marketing FUD.
This is going to be for the hitherto-unavailable third tier of new iPhone: we'll have iPhone 8, iPhone 8 Plus, and iPhone X. I expect this is referring to the X. Which may well only be offered in a 256GB configuration. A jet black iPhone 7 Plus in 256 GB is $969 today. So this might not be a huge increase for the X. I fully expect 8 and 8 Plus models to mirror current pricing.
And second, we've seen this "high price" reporting with other releases, notably the Apple Watch IIRC. Reputable outlets were floating high prices, and Apple announced "normal" pricing at the event. Other comments here have talked about anchoring: this may be more of the same Apple marketing FUD.
No one has mentioned the possibility of using UCB-C as a docking station. Phones are already powerful enough for the kind of work an executive does (email, word processing, spreadsheet). Now if their computer is in their pocket and they can plug into any screen at all they don't need a computer at all.
The progression of the smartphone is evidently to replace the personal computer and the iPhone X should be a step in that direction.
The progression of the smartphone is evidently to replace the personal computer and the iPhone X should be a step in that direction.
> The progression of the smartphone is evidently to replace the personal computer and the iPhone X should be a step in that direction.
Yeah, I kept hearing the same thing about tablets till sales dropped off. I'll believe it when I see it.
Yeah, I kept hearing the same thing about tablets till sales dropped off. I'll believe it when I see it.
I think the iPad pro is more targeted for the kind of work that an executive does. Docking stations / plugging into any screens don't seem like something that has been well thought out and I don't think that Apple's strategy right now is to market to that kind of audience.
It's sad that Windows totally had the opportunity to own and drive that kind of market but it never worked out for them.
Google pixel has USB C for docking and is only $650...
Planned obsolescence is my biggest gripe with Apple and other brands that do this.
My 2012 iOS device is now stuck on iOS9. I wouldn't mind except they bundle web browser updates with the OS. This is wrong.
The web browser on iOS9 does not support javascript ES6 features such as the "Let" statement. Any web sites that use let statements will fail on iOS 9. I discovered this recently when browsing on my iPad3, 2012 model. Apple doesn't care, they just want people throwing their old hardware in the trash and buying latest product.
I understand why I can't have iOS10 on an iPad3, but the web browser should be given updates separately.
My 2012 iOS device is now stuck on iOS9. I wouldn't mind except they bundle web browser updates with the OS. This is wrong.
The web browser on iOS9 does not support javascript ES6 features such as the "Let" statement. Any web sites that use let statements will fail on iOS 9. I discovered this recently when browsing on my iPad3, 2012 model. Apple doesn't care, they just want people throwing their old hardware in the trash and buying latest product.
I understand why I can't have iOS10 on an iPad3, but the web browser should be given updates separately.
Apple have a lot to answer for, and there are a lot of flaws with iOS devices, but this isn't one of them.
5 years of updates for a smartphone is pretty good. From Android, I think only certain Sony phones even come close to that.
By now, the battery cells will be damaged, the CPU/RAM too slow or limited, the flash memory wearing out. Time for a new phone :)
5 years of updates for a smartphone is pretty good. From Android, I think only certain Sony phones even come close to that.
By now, the battery cells will be damaged, the CPU/RAM too slow or limited, the flash memory wearing out. Time for a new phone :)
> 5 years of updates for a smartphone is pretty good.
As mentioned, I don't mind about OS updates, I care about browser updates or at least patches for iOS Safari.
> By now, the battery cells will be damaged, the CPU/RAM too slow or limited, the flash memory wearing out
Nope. The battery on my iPad3 is fine. iPads should not be classed as a "throw-away" replaceable product like phones seem to be. CPU and RAM is fine for web browsing and most apps. Flash memory wearing out? Gimme a break.
Every Steam game homepage gallery is broken now on browsers that don't support ES6 javascript. The highlight player doesn't display images or video since recent update to their website. I previously enjoyed browsing Steam on my iPad looking for new games. Example:
http://store.steampowered.com/app/449640/Bloody_Zombies/
Note, I partly blame Steam web devs for not making it backwards compatible, but also Apple for denying Safari any updates because of their dirty business model of abandoning their own products. Disgusting lack of modern environmentally concerned tech life-cycle standards. They boast about green packaging for products destined for the grave in only 5 years.
As mentioned, I don't mind about OS updates, I care about browser updates or at least patches for iOS Safari.
> By now, the battery cells will be damaged, the CPU/RAM too slow or limited, the flash memory wearing out
Nope. The battery on my iPad3 is fine. iPads should not be classed as a "throw-away" replaceable product like phones seem to be. CPU and RAM is fine for web browsing and most apps. Flash memory wearing out? Gimme a break.
Every Steam game homepage gallery is broken now on browsers that don't support ES6 javascript. The highlight player doesn't display images or video since recent update to their website. I previously enjoyed browsing Steam on my iPad looking for new games. Example:
http://store.steampowered.com/app/449640/Bloody_Zombies/
Note, I partly blame Steam web devs for not making it backwards compatible, but also Apple for denying Safari any updates because of their dirty business model of abandoning their own products. Disgusting lack of modern environmentally concerned tech life-cycle standards. They boast about green packaging for products destined for the grave in only 5 years.
If you run custom ROMs on Android that situation is currently better than anything - you can still get updates for a Galaxy Nexus from 2011. Xiaomi is also currently providing official updates for 4+ years on some devices.
The official situation should change too - with the release of Android 8 there is now a more defined layer separating the HAL from the rest of the OS, allowing updates to be pushed out universally.
The official situation should change too - with the release of Android 8 there is now a more defined layer separating the HAL from the rest of the OS, allowing updates to be pushed out universally.
Yeah I'll totally bet the farm on the hope that in five years shady_dude_1998 will upload a nice ROM for me on some kind of site that forces me to watch an add for 15 seconds first.
I'm not against the idea of customizing your phone with a custom ROM but let's not pretend that it's a genuine option for regular consumers.
I'm not against the idea of customizing your phone with a custom ROM but let's not pretend that it's a genuine option for regular consumers.
I'm not suggesting that - look at big professional projects like Lineage, Paranoid and others.
I'd say it is a quite genuine option - you just need to know one person who can set you up once, updating is simple and streamlined.
I'd say it is a quite genuine option - you just need to know one person who can set you up once, updating is simple and streamlined.
Funny thing. We in India pay regularly close to $1000 (oh the irony there) for a regular iPhone 7 - and they sell a lot here.
Yep, Australia too.
iPhone 7 32 GB
Australian price: AU$1,079 ... US Price: $649
iPhone 7 32 GB
Australian price: AU$1,079 ... US Price: $649
No offence :P but we are paying > US$1000
No offence taken! That's pretty outrageous, do you know if they have a justification for that price in your country?
It's mostly due to custom duty on electronics and gadgets, which can be upwards of 25%
256 gig iPhone7 in Australia is over $1000 USD
Turkey has long been one of the most expensive countries to buy an iPhone. The current model costs $1,200 there [0], and I remember that it was already the most expensive country 4 or 5 years ago.
[0] https://9to5mac.com/2017/05/04/cheapest-country-to-buy-an-ip...
[0] https://9to5mac.com/2017/05/04/cheapest-country-to-buy-an-ip...
"The imaging system can then stitch the patterns into a detailed 3-D image of your face to determine if you are indeed the owner of your smartphone before unlocking it."
So I pay an extra $300 to save me the trouble of putting my finger on the touchID sensor? That doesn't sound like a compelling value proposition to me.
So I pay an extra $300 to save me the trouble of putting my finger on the touchID sensor? That doesn't sound like a compelling value proposition to me.
$1k? Wow, they must have figured out a way to add the audio jack back!
It'll be interesting to see how this works out. I'm in the minority amongst my social group as an Android user, but I can't imagine many of the iPhone users I know shelling out $1k. But I'm sure there's a mid-range model. Right?
It'll be interesting to see how this works out. I'm in the minority amongst my social group as an Android user, but I can't imagine many of the iPhone users I know shelling out $1k. But I'm sure there's a mid-range model. Right?
It says something about your social group that you even know that fact.
The $1k price might be easier to stomach if iPhone managed content as well as it used to. I've stopped using the apple ecosystem for photo + music management, and now find it isn't managing contacts well across devices any longer.
For all the truly amazing capabilities the basics are lacking.
For all the truly amazing capabilities the basics are lacking.
I'm not sure about music, but what's wrong with the default Photos or Contacts apps? Contacts works fine for me, and Photos works very well considering I have nearly 9000 photos. Syncing over iCloud is also fine, between my phone and my laptop.
Is the new iPhone really going to be $999? I wonder if Apple are seeding rumours like this to make a smaller price increase seem more reasonable.
This is the OLED, face recognition, fully tricked out model. There will be several tiers and they're not all going to be a grand. Have you ever heard a too-high price rumour of an Apple anything, throughout the decades of them selling endless piles of expensive stuff? Seeding rumours, heh.
Or they seed rumors to test the waters of what people will accept. Based on this thread, it looks like $999 is acceptable.
Most people on this site are well paid tech folks.
It's the iPhone X, which is supposed to be the end of the line. The iPhone 8 will be priced as it has always been.
Apple's 1k pricing will be doing just fine as Samsung is also pricing Note 8 around the same.
I believe the Note is equivalent to Apple's Plus models.
Is it? I think the S8 Plus is the equivalent - unless the new iPhone comes with a stylus.
Ah, wasn't aware of the S Plus models. You're probably right.
The author of this article has soaked up the conventional wisdom about Apple's pricing. Yes, they don't sell cheap phones, and sure they make a healthy profit, but it doesn't then follow that the product is overpriced. The iPhone has always been an extremely high-quality product and has always been competitively priced versus comparable models from other phone makers. So why do they have the reputation of premium pricing?
This $1000 iPhone X may be nearly as expensive as a Macbook Air, but that's entirely reasonable: it's a far more powerful and sophisticated computer in a much smaller package. Why would you expect it to cost less?
This $1000 iPhone X may be nearly as expensive as a Macbook Air, but that's entirely reasonable: it's a far more powerful and sophisticated computer in a much smaller package. Why would you expect it to cost less?
Not extremely. Merely high quality. Numerous cases with broken buttons even on brand new devices, wi-fi failure issues, gps failure issues. Yes, it is anecdotal cases but so are all others for different brands.
I'm not quite sure the $1K price for the X is Apple playing the Veblen game here.
Gruber seems to hint that the OLED display is still single-sourced by Samsung and incredibly expensive to boot:
https://daringfireball.net/linked/2017/09/06/samsung-oled-mo...
The price may just be what it is until the price of the display comes down. Apple could also be trying to modulate demand because of the low display availability, but in the case of iPhone it will probably backfire and cause demand to increase.
Gruber seems to hint that the OLED display is still single-sourced by Samsung and incredibly expensive to boot:
https://daringfireball.net/linked/2017/09/06/samsung-oled-mo...
The price may just be what it is until the price of the display comes down. Apple could also be trying to modulate demand because of the low display availability, but in the case of iPhone it will probably backfire and cause demand to increase.
I don't know why this is such a shock to everyone. The iPhone 7 Plus 256GB was not much cheaper than $1,000. I guess because most people don't go for that model? Even so I'm not surprised at all.
There has to be some technology to justify the price or we revert to the old Nokia model of adding some RAM, upping the megapixels and releasing a new model and we know how that ended for Nokia. Brand can only take you so far. Nobody thought a company as entrenched as Nokia could suddenly disappear, and they did.
The bigger issue is at the moment its just taking productive income from the economy that could drive real economic activity and job growth and dumping it in Apple's already inflated bank balance which they don't know what to do with.
The bigger issue is at the moment its just taking productive income from the economy that could drive real economic activity and job growth and dumping it in Apple's already inflated bank balance which they don't know what to do with.
The first iPhone was announced at $599 in mid-2007.
That's $704 2017 dollars, and look how much more of a device you will be getting.
Seems perfectly find to me. If people want to spend it, of course a company will make it.
That's $704 2017 dollars, and look how much more of a device you will be getting.
Seems perfectly find to me. If people want to spend it, of course a company will make it.
Competition is a hell of a lot better these days. A phone at 1/5 the cost will cover the same needs.
I voted with my wallet since iPhone 4. I was an early enthusiast with iPhone and owned the first model, as soon as it came out, and the next 3 models after that. But at some point it started becoming so expensive I was put off. I can afford it but I was just disgusted. I have gone through 3 Android phones since and now use a Nexus 6P, which is a very nice phone.
"vote with your wallet". I'll never stop being amazed at how readily americans buy into the "democracy = consumerism" equation. Or the number of things they happily apply that formula to.
I suppose that 'we're here to change the world' soda commercial isn't nearly as absurd when you consider the audience.
I suppose that 'we're here to change the world' soda commercial isn't nearly as absurd when you consider the audience.
Going through eight phones in ten years is an interesting choice for someone being disgusted by Appleconomics...?
The thousand dollar iPhone is the BMW 7 series of iPhones. Apple at this point is constrained by their supply chain. They have the capacity to introduce new tech, but the tech isn't capable of being produced at the scale to put in a couple hundred million iPhones, so they put it into a more expensive phone and sell fewer of them. Then they put the tech that works into the regular iPhones a couple of generations later when the supply chain matures. Seems like a good long term strategy.
I've always thought they should do a 10k+ iPhone. Plenty of elites would buy it as a status symbol even if the hardware really wasn't any different.
I've seen premium gold-covered "styled" iPhones being sold for thousands by third parties.
like a gold iwatch?
It's interesting how in this forum people are concerned more about functionalities that don't justify its price point. But not so much on the aesthetics which is what the regular consumer really cares about. For the average Apple customer, the bezel change is HUGE. It's enough to justify the 1k even though it's not an innovation or some crazy performance boost. People are definitely still going to buy it.
I already paid $1,000 for my iPhone 7+ though it would cost $869 if I was living in the US (I don't know though if the prices in the Apple site are pre-VAT).
Apple next challenge is not making people pay $1,000 for an iPhone. People already do that. Apple next challenge is bringing globalization, breaking the VAT, and putting profits in safe havens away from the fiscal preys.
People already pay thousands, dozens and hundreds of them for luxury. Apple upping its price might have the reverse effect: People line up to buy the highest price iPhone because it is not "accessible for everyone". Apple always got your back with a cheaper version but you really want the expensive one otherwise you are out of line.
We are getting close everyday to the confrontation between IT giga-multi-nationals and the traditional countries/governments of the world. We are probably still too far from the real battle but everyday is showing more why these two are not friends.
Apple next challenge is not making people pay $1,000 for an iPhone. People already do that. Apple next challenge is bringing globalization, breaking the VAT, and putting profits in safe havens away from the fiscal preys.
People already pay thousands, dozens and hundreds of them for luxury. Apple upping its price might have the reverse effect: People line up to buy the highest price iPhone because it is not "accessible for everyone". Apple always got your back with a cheaper version but you really want the expensive one otherwise you are out of line.
We are getting close everyday to the confrontation between IT giga-multi-nationals and the traditional countries/governments of the world. We are probably still too far from the real battle but everyday is showing more why these two are not friends.
For $1,000 can it be durable as well as good looking? How about a serious IP (Ingress Protection - dust and water) rating?
Honest question, what does the rating actually mean? The Galaxy S7 was IP68 certified but did not survive immersion https://www.consumerreports.org/smartphones/samsung-galaxy-s...
This might be a case of under-promise, over-deliver.
This might be a case of under-promise, over-deliver.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_Code is a decent summary.
IP68 means absolutely no dust whatsoever and:
"The equipment is suitable for continuous immersion in water under conditions which shall be specified by the manufacturer. However, with certain types of equipment, it can mean that water can enter but only in such a manner that it produces no harmful effects. The test depth and/or duration is expected to be greater than the requirements for IPx7, and other environmental effects may be added, such as temperature cycling before immersion."
In the S8's case, the manufacturer specified conditions were "submersion in up to 1.5 meters of fresh water for up to 30 minutes", from http://www.samsung.com/global/galaxy/galaxy-s8/performance/.
IP68 means absolutely no dust whatsoever and:
"The equipment is suitable for continuous immersion in water under conditions which shall be specified by the manufacturer. However, with certain types of equipment, it can mean that water can enter but only in such a manner that it produces no harmful effects. The test depth and/or duration is expected to be greater than the requirements for IPx7, and other environmental effects may be added, such as temperature cycling before immersion."
In the S8's case, the manufacturer specified conditions were "submersion in up to 1.5 meters of fresh water for up to 30 minutes", from http://www.samsung.com/global/galaxy/galaxy-s8/performance/.
I guess I mean IP capability, not rating.
Good looking? iPhones stopped being good looking since they added the camera that sticks out like a sore thumb.
Even the slimmest of cases makes that invisible.
For a company (and its customers) that rave about the design and look of the phone itself, covering it all with a case seems like the exact opposite of what one would expect to be the norm.
Then I guess that means we can put to rest the idea that Apple puts form over function.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. I have a Pixel by Google, and it's gorgeous, but I'm terrified of ever using it without a case.
It isn't crossing a threshold. The old iphones and their "affordable" price tags was crossing a threshhold. Apple was dipping their toes in the middle-america Market in order to grab market share. And now they're returning to what they've always sold, overpriced gadgets aimed at a specific niche demo.
Can't it be both? Apple sells upmarket but also mid-market phones, like the iPhone SE. Features are introduced on the high-end models and then migrate down. Of course Apple will continue to compete in the mid-market range.
> iPhone SE
Which is the best phone I've ever owned -- Nokia N9 aside, anyway. Excellent size, great performance, latest updates and I got it second hand (but BNIB, was her insurance replacement for a lost phone) for $350AUD. I get to use iOS with a reasonably modern day chipset, an excellent camera, but for the cost of a midrange android phone. Excellent, really.
Which is the best phone I've ever owned -- Nokia N9 aside, anyway. Excellent size, great performance, latest updates and I got it second hand (but BNIB, was her insurance replacement for a lost phone) for $350AUD. I get to use iOS with a reasonably modern day chipset, an excellent camera, but for the cost of a midrange android phone. Excellent, really.
No mention of a cell phone pushing over the bar of what constitutes a felony in terms of dollar amount. I'm in no way for raising this limit further, but I also don't think stealing a cellphone should be a felony.
Older articles, but they cover what I'm talking about: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/03/09/why-stealing-ip...
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-brie...
Older articles, but they cover what I'm talking about: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/03/09/why-stealing-ip...
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-brie...
I highly recommend all web developers buy a crappy old phone like mine and use it often on their own sites. That would improve the mobile web tremendously, I think.
(I'm still running a 4-year old, super under-powered Android phone. I shelled out $150 for it when it was brand-spanking new. That was unsubsidized.)
(I'm still running a 4-year old, super under-powered Android phone. I shelled out $150 for it when it was brand-spanking new. That was unsubsidized.)
From europe > many people have iphone. The iphone 7 plus costs around 1000usd here already. Amazingly many poeple have it including people i know that are making around 1000usd month. It is amazing, they dont even use apps, just for calling and facebook.
I dont get it its like somebody in US buying it for 5000 usd.
But it is changing. With companies like xiaomi putting up phones for 100usd that do the same for those people and look nice... I believe apple is going to be going down if they increase prices even more. These people dont want second class iphone. They want THE iphone. If they cant afford THE iphone they wont buy the shitty 500usd one. They might aswell buy the 100usd xaomi then.
I think aple is not going right way with this.
I dont get it its like somebody in US buying it for 5000 usd.
But it is changing. With companies like xiaomi putting up phones for 100usd that do the same for those people and look nice... I believe apple is going to be going down if they increase prices even more. These people dont want second class iphone. They want THE iphone. If they cant afford THE iphone they wont buy the shitty 500usd one. They might aswell buy the 100usd xaomi then.
I think aple is not going right way with this.
I think Apple hit a point where producing an exclusive phone with top features in every department wasn't really possible anymore at their scale. We've seen them stuck at 16GB for a really long time simply because upgrading all phones to 32GB would consume another whopping 15% of the SSD market. OLED screens in that quality and format aren't produced in enough quantities to put on every iPhone - yet. But people expect an iPhone to be the best of the best given the price.
So there's a new X line that will have all the best of the best and the regularly numbered ones below it will have more mainstream features / design and will be produced in greater numbers.
So there's a new X line that will have all the best of the best and the regularly numbered ones below it will have more mainstream features / design and will be produced in greater numbers.
> OLED screens in that quality and format aren't produced in enough quantities to put on every iPhone
Apple's scale is amazing but I don't really get this observation. Is this is because Samsung has been shipping OLED at Apple-level volumes for years, so they've already sucked up most of the supply?
Apple's scale is amazing but I don't really get this observation. Is this is because Samsung has been shipping OLED at Apple-level volumes for years, so they've already sucked up most of the supply?
It's that Samsung/LG don't have the production capacity to make OLED screens at the volumes Apple will need to put it on a mass-market phone.
To give you an idea of the discrepancy: Samsung's two flagship phones (S8/S8 Edge) sold roughly 12MM in their first quarter of availability (April-June 2017), while the current iPhone models sold 40+ million units in their third quarter of availability (same time frame).
To give you an idea of the discrepancy: Samsung's two flagship phones (S8/S8 Edge) sold roughly 12MM in their first quarter of availability (April-June 2017), while the current iPhone models sold 40+ million units in their third quarter of availability (same time frame).
Not every Samsung with an OLED screen gets the same OLED as the Note 8 and Edge 8 are getting of course. There are plenty of phones that have a much simpler construction similar to what Apple was doing with their LCD technology.
And basically Samsung is not going to cut their own production to sell to Apple. Samsung is Samsung's preferred customer I imagine, unless the phone department seriously lowballs their offer.
And basically Samsung is not going to cut their own production to sell to Apple. Samsung is Samsung's preferred customer I imagine, unless the phone department seriously lowballs their offer.
In the country I live in (France), most smartphone sales are packaged with a subscription and the price of the phone is hidden.
Is that an exception ?
Because I see why Apple wants to sell the idea of the iPhone as a luxury product, but subsidization runs opposite to luxury.
Is that an exception ?
Because I see why Apple wants to sell the idea of the iPhone as a luxury product, but subsidization runs opposite to luxury.
Most (all?) carriers in the US have shifted from subsidization to a leasing model (with ability to trade in your leased phone typically at 12 months).
However, it's still smaller monthly payments; few I suspect buy the device up-front.
However, it's still smaller monthly payments; few I suspect buy the device up-front.
First of all, Apple don't need to sell many of these models: We're all doing an incredible job for Apple discussing the price tag of an unannounced phone. That alone is worth millions and millions for Apple PR.
Nonetheless I believe they will sell lots and lots of these models: It will be a status item.
Moreover, in a lot of countries, most people don't but smartphones fully upfront to own them, but pay monthly with their phone bill. So, its not $1k or $1.5k, but perhaps $50 more upfront compared to other high end smartphones and another $15 monthly surcharge on the phone bill. Doesn't seem sooo incredible that way, isn't it?
Nonetheless I believe they will sell lots and lots of these models: It will be a status item.
Moreover, in a lot of countries, most people don't but smartphones fully upfront to own them, but pay monthly with their phone bill. So, its not $1k or $1.5k, but perhaps $50 more upfront compared to other high end smartphones and another $15 monthly surcharge on the phone bill. Doesn't seem sooo incredible that way, isn't it?
I have no idea what people do with $800+ phones. I'm on Nexus 5X (<$180), and it's perfectly fine, the camera is great, apps run just fine.
I doubt most of these people are doing phone based VR and play high end phone games.
I doubt most of these people are doing phone based VR and play high end phone games.
...So?
I knew plenty of people who buy a new Android, priced anywhere from $400 to $700, every year, more often than not it was once every 9 months even.
So I might spend $1100 or so on the iPhone Pro / X / whatever the moniker is. But I'll use it at least 3 years.
Annual cost of owning an iPhone makes it cheaper than almost any Android.
Not everything is about upfront cost. iPhones get updated for 5 years and they don't start lagging in 8-12 months like almost all Androids do. If you don't bust it, you might sell it for 75-90% of its original cost even 3 years down the line.
Mostly philosophical article without much economical substance.
I knew plenty of people who buy a new Android, priced anywhere from $400 to $700, every year, more often than not it was once every 9 months even.
So I might spend $1100 or so on the iPhone Pro / X / whatever the moniker is. But I'll use it at least 3 years.
Annual cost of owning an iPhone makes it cheaper than almost any Android.
Not everything is about upfront cost. iPhones get updated for 5 years and they don't start lagging in 8-12 months like almost all Androids do. If you don't bust it, you might sell it for 75-90% of its original cost even 3 years down the line.
Mostly philosophical article without much economical substance.
I disagree with this.
Although the iPhones might get updated for 5 years that does not make them fast. Each update makes the older device slower which at a point it becomes unusable. A 3 year old device just cant compare with the increase in features, how a newer device can.
But for Android, it all comes down to the provider. This has always been the issue. I have a Nexus 6 running 7.1 and working just fine. I could use it for another year if i wanted but it does show signals of getting old.
People used to change iphone every year as they did with Android. I believe that this is coming to an end and people will keep there phones longer as they become much more expensive (X:1100+, note8:1050, etc) and the increase in hardware is not that massive any more.
Although the iPhones might get updated for 5 years that does not make them fast. Each update makes the older device slower which at a point it becomes unusable. A 3 year old device just cant compare with the increase in features, how a newer device can.
But for Android, it all comes down to the provider. This has always been the issue. I have a Nexus 6 running 7.1 and working just fine. I could use it for another year if i wanted but it does show signals of getting old.
People used to change iphone every year as they did with Android. I believe that this is coming to an end and people will keep there phones longer as they become much more expensive (X:1100+, note8:1050, etc) and the increase in hardware is not that massive any more.
We both have anecdotal evidence so we can disagree all week without each of us being right globally.
I am yet to ever see a slow iPhone in my life though, anecdotal evidence or not.
Maybe you were looking at iPhone 5 or 5S. From 6 and on, they are quite long-lasting and many people hold on to them for a long time without complaints.
Nexus is not a good example from your side. It's more the exception than the rule. Have you looked at the wild landscape of most of Android land? Phones get abandoned in less than a year. That's the norm in Android.
Nexii and Pixels are the outliers.
EDIT #1: Nexus 6 should theoretically now be abandoned by Google in terms of new Android versions, same as 5X and 6P. Last two should have one more year of security updates though.
EDIT #2: "increase in features" in smartphones hasn't been happening in a while. It's been mostly rebranding of a little bit more battery-efficient SoCs, at least in Android. Apple is showing gradual increase in single-core performance, and I can't deny that my Mi 6 (using Snapdragon 835) is snappy as hell. So IMO you're half-right: people will hold on to devices for longer since they're very expensive now, but there's another half: many people, me included, feel the smartphone hype is over and that the OEMs have nothing to show except flashier displays, maybe faster SoCs, and prettier outer shells. Thus I want to buy a longer-lasting device. And that ain't any device in Android, sadly. I am not a huge fan of Apple but the durability and high performance retention (the point you're questioning) seem to be an accepted fact, so I'll go with them.
I am yet to ever see a slow iPhone in my life though, anecdotal evidence or not.
Maybe you were looking at iPhone 5 or 5S. From 6 and on, they are quite long-lasting and many people hold on to them for a long time without complaints.
Nexus is not a good example from your side. It's more the exception than the rule. Have you looked at the wild landscape of most of Android land? Phones get abandoned in less than a year. That's the norm in Android.
Nexii and Pixels are the outliers.
EDIT #1: Nexus 6 should theoretically now be abandoned by Google in terms of new Android versions, same as 5X and 6P. Last two should have one more year of security updates though.
EDIT #2: "increase in features" in smartphones hasn't been happening in a while. It's been mostly rebranding of a little bit more battery-efficient SoCs, at least in Android. Apple is showing gradual increase in single-core performance, and I can't deny that my Mi 6 (using Snapdragon 835) is snappy as hell. So IMO you're half-right: people will hold on to devices for longer since they're very expensive now, but there's another half: many people, me included, feel the smartphone hype is over and that the OEMs have nothing to show except flashier displays, maybe faster SoCs, and prettier outer shells. Thus I want to buy a longer-lasting device. And that ain't any device in Android, sadly. I am not a huge fan of Apple but the durability and high performance retention (the point you're questioning) seem to be an accepted fact, so I'll go with them.
The OnePlus 5 grows ever more attractive, eh?
Does the actual price matter? I thought about buying one outright when I bought mine, but it worked out more expensive than buying one on a plan, I can't think of anyone who bought their's outright
Personally for me and my usage in the UK, a mobile phone plan is more expensive over the course of 2 years.
Yes the initial outlay is more painful, but i find £25 a month much more palatable than £74 (for the same plan with the phone)
back of the napkin maths says the following; iPhone 7+ 128G (my current phone) - £819 phone plan (unlimited data - 600mins - unlimited texts) - £25/month Over 2 years - 819+600 - £1419
phone + plan (unlimited data - unlimited minutes - unlimited texts, closest to what i currently have) - £74/month Over 2 years - £1850
Yes the initial outlay is more painful, but i find £25 a month much more palatable than £74 (for the same plan with the phone)
back of the napkin maths says the following; iPhone 7+ 128G (my current phone) - £819 phone plan (unlimited data - 600mins - unlimited texts) - £25/month Over 2 years - 819+600 - £1419
phone + plan (unlimited data - unlimited minutes - unlimited texts, closest to what i currently have) - £74/month Over 2 years - £1850
Yes I'm in australia and the maths has probably changed - plans are a lot cheaper now. Still I stand by my comment, a large percentage of iphone buyers don't look at the price, they look at the monthly rate - if the difference is $10 a month then it probably won't change things much imho.
I'm surprised its taken apple this long to realize a phone is more of a fashion statement than any clothes/jewelry/car. Esp to the poor. They should of had multiple teirs to begin with.
Outside the US the latest top of the line iPhones have been over $1k for a while now. I guess Apple figured if other people are willing to pay that much then why wouldn't people in the US?
> From the iPhone’s introduction a decade ago, Apple has always priced it as a premium product — a more refined and polished alternative to the legions of cheaper smartphones available in the market.
And not only is it priced that way, thats actually what it is which is why in all likelihood I'm buying one tomorrow.
Every Android I've ever used has felt like cheap shit in my hands, and works like crap after 10 months or so. My current iPhone is knocking on 3 years old and works as well as the day I took it out of the box.
And not only is it priced that way, thats actually what it is which is why in all likelihood I'm buying one tomorrow.
Every Android I've ever used has felt like cheap shit in my hands, and works like crap after 10 months or so. My current iPhone is knocking on 3 years old and works as well as the day I took it out of the box.
The should just call it by it's price tag.
iPhone $1k iPhone $1.2k iPhone $2k ...
iPhone $1k iPhone $1.2k iPhone $2k ...
I don't get what it is about the iPhone that people are willing to pay a premium for. Is it all just in the marketing?
I would not mind paying $1000 for a phone if it offered any additional value over my $200 Android phone.
But I cannot see anything better in the form factor of the iPhone line.
And for the software - I have an iPad and I hate the software. It is so restricted. You cannot even do basic tasks like download an mp3/pdf/whatever in your browser and then open it in the app of your choice.
I would not mind paying $1000 for a phone if it offered any additional value over my $200 Android phone.
But I cannot see anything better in the form factor of the iPhone line.
And for the software - I have an iPad and I hate the software. It is so restricted. You cannot even do basic tasks like download an mp3/pdf/whatever in your browser and then open it in the app of your choice.
Android is full of Google suff. I can't hack my android either(i.e. get root-like access, remove stuff I want, run my *nix stuff etc) so as far as the restrictions are concerned the difference btw Android and iOS is not that significant. It pisses me off because it's said Android is OSS but in practice you can't really run AOSP on your Android device nor you can control/own your own device. You basically end-up with a tivoized device.
I think you can download pdf/mp3 files and open them in your favorite app on iOS too.
Now $1000 is a bit too much so unless it has a killer feature I will skip this upgrade.
I think you can download pdf/mp3 files and open them in your favorite app on iOS too.
Now $1000 is a bit too much so unless it has a killer feature I will skip this upgrade.
People have been saying these things for the last decade, and they still bought the next iPhone.
And I'm not saying they are wrong. But they bought it for one thing, and that's the "feels" it gives them. It's not Android, they are not buying a phone, they're getting an iPhone(tm).
Now, when you can buy a Huawei P-whatever that has the same lines-on-white flat design UI, the same speed, it's not the specs. And yes, the iPhone looks better, the Huawei thing feels bulky in comparison. Does that feel worth 500 USD? That's up to the customers.
And I'm not saying they are wrong. But they bought it for one thing, and that's the "feels" it gives them. It's not Android, they are not buying a phone, they're getting an iPhone(tm).
Now, when you can buy a Huawei P-whatever that has the same lines-on-white flat design UI, the same speed, it's not the specs. And yes, the iPhone looks better, the Huawei thing feels bulky in comparison. Does that feel worth 500 USD? That's up to the customers.
And customers here in Europe overwhelmingly buy a Huawei (they've just passed Apple in sales). Might be that Android had caught up to iOS enough that iOS doesn't justify the price premium (especially since iPhones here are 800$+).
Yes, I have a lot of gripes with Android too. But it's not as restricted as iOS.
And no, I don't get any option to download an MP3 from Safari on my iPad.
And no, I don't get any option to download an MP3 from Safari on my iPad.
Maybe you don't have apps that play mp3's? Technically it should be possible. See also this: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/5985729?tstart=0
Hmm.. I would have thought there are apps on that iPad that can play MP3s. There is the Apple "Music" app and Spotify on it. But maybe they can't.
Looking around the App Store, the apps that play MP3s look rather shady. Anything trustworthy out there to play MP3s?
Anyhow, I downloaded one of the apps that can play MP3s. Still, Safari does not offer any way to save them or push them to that app.
Looking around the App Store, the apps that play MP3s look rather shady. Anything trustworthy out there to play MP3s?
Anyhow, I downloaded one of the apps that can play MP3s. Still, Safari does not offer any way to save them or push them to that app.
So, why did you pay a premium for iPad when Android tablet at roughly half the price would give you the same functionality?
(btw I don't get it either. But I don't see anything special about iPad, hence my question)
(btw I don't get it either. But I don't see anything special about iPad, hence my question)
Two reasons:
1) It had the best form factor these days. It was the lightest 9.7inch tablet. Nowadays, a Samsung Galaxy Tab S2 scores better.
2) iOS is a popular OS, so I wanted to have at least one device running it.
1) It had the best form factor these days. It was the lightest 9.7inch tablet. Nowadays, a Samsung Galaxy Tab S2 scores better.
2) iOS is a popular OS, so I wanted to have at least one device running it.
The hardware is really really good, well supported and it's pretty light with excellent battery life. It's actually not al l that more expensive than Androids either (the new "cheap" iPad is actually on-par or cheaper than Android competitors).
Having said that, Apple does make a few funny pricing decisions that pushed me to buy an ASUS Zenpad instead.
Having said that, Apple does make a few funny pricing decisions that pushed me to buy an ASUS Zenpad instead.
120hz refresh rate, brightest screen, best stylus
I hate iOS but the hardware is far beyond any android tablet.
I hate iOS but the hardware is far beyond any android tablet.
"You cannot even do basic tasks like download an mp3/pdf/whatever in your browser and then open it the app of your choice."
While I agree with your general sentiment I can save and open PDF:s from safari to third party applications just fine on my IPad.
While I agree with your general sentiment I can save and open PDF:s from safari to third party applications just fine on my IPad.
How do you save it? I don't get any option to do that.
Only options to directly open it in applications that are registered to open PDF files. That seems to save a copy to the directory of that application. Which is terrible messy and clunky way to deal with files imho.
For MP3s I don't get any option other then to open them in Safari.
Only options to directly open it in applications that are registered to open PDF files. That seems to save a copy to the directory of that application. Which is terrible messy and clunky way to deal with files imho.
For MP3s I don't get any option other then to open them in Safari.
"That seems to save a copy to the directory of that application"
But that's different from being unable to save :)
This is what I meant. I have not found a magic button to bypass the ios sandboxing.
Google drive works almost as well for me since I use it anyway.
But that's different from being unable to save :)
This is what I meant. I have not found a magic button to bypass the ios sandboxing.
Google drive works almost as well for me since I use it anyway.
I can't see myself buying another phone after buying an iPhone 6 in 2015. I just don't see a reason to replace it until the battery can't charge anymore. By then I don't have plans on getting an equivalent phone. Maybe something cheaper but I think purchasing phones every two years or the like is bad from an economical standpoint. I'd rather spend my money I'm better food than a fancier phone but I'm weird.
I wonder if the iPhone upgrade program will have these: https://www.apple.com/shop/iphone/iphone-upgrade-program .
(I'm not affiliated with Apple. However, I do think that it's kind of neat that Apple has way for people to get the latest iPhone each year without having to buy it outright, or be locked to a specific carrier).
(I'm not affiliated with Apple. However, I do think that it's kind of neat that Apple has way for people to get the latest iPhone each year without having to buy it outright, or be locked to a specific carrier).
I'd pay $1000 if I could throw it in to a wall without breaking it.
Until then I'll stick to buying previous generation hardware for 70% the price.
Until then I'll stick to buying previous generation hardware for 70% the price.
I hear you, I can't find a car I can drive through the bottom of a lake either.
I don't crash my car once a week.
But you throw your phone at the wall once a week? I think your problem requires a different solution.
It's far easier to make a phone surviving regular toilet dives than teaching people appreciation of things, or mindfulness. Ain't nobody got time for that.
How often do you remove your pants every week? Or pull your phone out of a loose pocket?
I've never had this problem. Perhaps I am more careful with my phone in general.
idk, maybe try not dropping your phone once a week?
There you go http://www.hammacher.com/Product/12531
The real expensive part in the US is the cell plan. Excluding the phone, the mainstream plans are $60+/mo with taxes. If you're paying $720 a year for cell service a $1k phone really isn't that much.
(I would never pay $60/mo but lots of people do)
(I would never pay $60/mo but lots of people do)
Wow, I forgot how bad it was. I have unlimited data, unlimited calling/sms, and (as of recently) free roaming in all EU countries for €30/month ($36), with T-Mobile in NL. So that's $432/year.
A $1k iPhone on it's own would cost ~ $40/mo if you spread it out over 24 months.
A $1k iPhone on it's own would cost ~ $40/mo if you spread it out over 24 months.
Don't look at the prices Canadians pay (for less), you might choke on something.
I fully expect that the high end phone will start at $1000 but why is NYTimes publishing this story as if it news? Apple hasn't published the prices of the phone and for now, the whole article is based on speculation.
Price - yeah fine whatever.
My issue is I can't see the benefit I'm getting extra. My 7+ seems to be about the same really. Lifestyle wise this latest black rectangle is going to change literally nothing as far as I can tell.
My issue is I can't see the benefit I'm getting extra. My 7+ seems to be about the same really. Lifestyle wise this latest black rectangle is going to change literally nothing as far as I can tell.
From the so far leaked rumors I don’t see anything to justify the price. If anything there is a regression with the absence of TouchID. But I guess we will have to wait and see in two days.
I think the screen will be the thing everyone talks about it. I think it's also the reason for the price.
What's so innovative about the screen? All the components at the top of the phone are still present in a blocked out section. It's not like they figured out how to conceal those components beneath the screen, which is what we're truly waiting for. Until the front of the phone is 100% screen space (perhaps minus a very thin bezel), it's certainly not worth the hype.
Edit: I went back and looked at the latest leaked photos. It's better than I remember. The phone looks decent enough when the screen is off, but very gimmicky when the screen is lit. It looks like they went as far as they could, realized they couldn't deliver any better, and so left that top section of the phone in what is essentially an unfinished state. I suspect the innovation I'm holding out for will happen by iPhone 10 or 11.
Edit: I went back and looked at the latest leaked photos. It's better than I remember. The phone looks decent enough when the screen is off, but very gimmicky when the screen is lit. It looks like they went as far as they could, realized they couldn't deliver any better, and so left that top section of the phone in what is essentially an unfinished state. I suspect the innovation I'm holding out for will happen by iPhone 10 or 11.
>If anything there is a regression with the absence of TouchID.
FaceID fulfills that role.
FaceID fulfills that role.
All face authentication schemes are a joke and can be broken soon after release. Fingerprint auth can be broken, too, but it's orders of magnitude more difficult to "clone" someone's fingerprint than it is to copy one of their pictures from the internet, or from a CCTV camera, etc.
Even if the system uses infrared or 3D images or whatever, it's just a matter of developing an advanced enough algorithm to deal with that, which shouldn't take that long if the target market is there (hundreds of millions of iphones with such an auth system).
Even if the system uses infrared or 3D images or whatever, it's just a matter of developing an advanced enough algorithm to deal with that, which shouldn't take that long if the target market is there (hundreds of millions of iphones with such an auth system).
>All face authentication schemes are a joke
So were fingerprint scanners before Apple's take on it.
>but it's orders of magnitude more difficult to "clone" someone's fingerprint
You can do this by taking a photo of a finger or lifting a print.
>copy one of their pictures from the internet, or from a CCTV camera, etc.
A 2d photo won't unlock FaceID. There are 3D sensors on the front for a reason.
>Even if the system uses infrared or 3D images or whatever, it's just a matter of developing an advanced enough algorithm to deal with that, which shouldn't take that long if the target market is there (hundreds of millions of iphones with such an auth system).
And you think 3D printing a skull, eyes, and possibly blood vessels is easier than copying a finger? Why do you act like you know so much about something that hasn't been tested in the wild?
So were fingerprint scanners before Apple's take on it.
>but it's orders of magnitude more difficult to "clone" someone's fingerprint
You can do this by taking a photo of a finger or lifting a print.
>copy one of their pictures from the internet, or from a CCTV camera, etc.
A 2d photo won't unlock FaceID. There are 3D sensors on the front for a reason.
>Even if the system uses infrared or 3D images or whatever, it's just a matter of developing an advanced enough algorithm to deal with that, which shouldn't take that long if the target market is there (hundreds of millions of iphones with such an auth system).
And you think 3D printing a skull, eyes, and possibly blood vessels is easier than copying a finger? Why do you act like you know so much about something that hasn't been tested in the wild?
If someone is going to 3D print your face, they're determined enough to get into your phone regardless.
Even the FBI had trouble getting into an iPhone. 3D printing a face might be a real solution in situations like that. Of course, for the average person, face id is probably just as secure as touch.
It will still have the same constraints as normal TouchID, so it will lock after 48 (72?) hrs and will only unlock with passcode. It might be marginally easier for FBI but I imagine 3D printing an acceptable face will be tough, especially if it uses IR on top of 3D cameras.
Will it be as reliable and fast as TouchID?
TouchID is amazingly reliable and fast, unless your hands are sweaty or greasy at all. In this case, almost every single time I have to click the home button multiple times until it stops trying to read my print and show the pin prompt for manual entry. Even then, it'll sometimes register the previous click (which is supposed to just bring up the pin screen) as a fingerprint unlock attempt, and will attempt to fill in the pin again right in the middle of me manually entering it, making it fail 3 or more times before I can enter my pin.
I've tried disabling it completely in favor of the pin, but in all honesty the 90% of the time my hands aren't sweaty or greasy it works so much faster that I just deal with the 10% and keep it enabled.
These could just be sweaty guy problems, but I'm definitely looking forward to face unlock.
I've tried disabling it completely in favor of the pin, but in all honesty the 90% of the time my hands aren't sweaty or greasy it works so much faster that I just deal with the 10% and keep it enabled.
These could just be sweaty guy problems, but I'm definitely looking forward to face unlock.
Apple isn't going to take a step back on a $1000 phone.
[deleted]
This is a very good strategy in my opinion. The iPhone will be the Rolex of the smartphone market and purchased as a fashion item and a status symbol.
Finally!
/s
/s
How many rolexes are sold worldwide again?
Apple becoming a "fashion" company is such a horrible strategic mistake that I don't think Steve Jobs would've made. Apple will proportionally become less of a "tech" company as a it becomes a fashion company.
In other words, the technology it uses in its devices will feel less and less advanced (especially for the price) as time moves on. You can already see that with other companies developing (real) gold phones with crystals on them and such, while using specs from 2-3 years before, but charging many thousands or tens of thousands of dollars for the phone.
Apple becoming a "fashion" company is such a horrible strategic mistake that I don't think Steve Jobs would've made. Apple will proportionally become less of a "tech" company as a it becomes a fashion company.
In other words, the technology it uses in its devices will feel less and less advanced (especially for the price) as time moves on. You can already see that with other companies developing (real) gold phones with crystals on them and such, while using specs from 2-3 years before, but charging many thousands or tens of thousands of dollars for the phone.
Aren't phones supposed to get cheaper every year?
An iPhone is a Veblen good [1]. The purpose of buying an iPhone is to advertise your economic resources.
Like a Gucci handbag or a Rolex watch. With a smaller markup.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
Like a Gucci handbag or a Rolex watch. With a smaller markup.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
That the purpose of it is to advertise economic resources is not true. My wife has an iPhone because it's the most competent tool she can use to get the job done. Having used several Android phones prior to this, I don't blame her. Relatively speaking there are fewer security issues, compatibility quirks, and reliability issues with iPhones which makes them worth the price to her.
After the 2 year mark our Android phones are literally in the junk drawer, and her iPhone 6s is still functioning as fast as the day it was purchased.
After the 2 year mark our Android phones are literally in the junk drawer, and her iPhone 6s is still functioning as fast as the day it was purchased.
Did you buy android phones at the same price point as the iPhones?
I've had nothing but bad experiences with iPhones in the first 4 years they existed, and have switched back to android for the past 6.
I've had nothing but bad experiences with iPhones in the first 4 years they existed, and have switched back to android for the past 6.
It always amazes me how difficult the android experience can be. I have always had Nexus devices and the "pure" google android is pretty easy and clean. My parents hand me their verizon phones and I wonder where the features and simplicity went. I'm amazed they tolerate the clutter and crap on their phones. Android can be nice and it can be crap.
As for a 2 year shelf life - I'm still on a 2013 Nexus 5. It runs smooth and runs everything I need. Isn't a 6s only 2 years old?
As for a 2 year shelf life - I'm still on a 2013 Nexus 5. It runs smooth and runs everything I need. Isn't a 6s only 2 years old?
Exactly, iOS devices get more _official_ OS updates than 95% of Android devices.
There are always a few Android devices that get multiple OS upgrades, but you can't predict which one of the current generation is the update-unicorn.
There are always a few Android devices that get multiple OS upgrades, but you can't predict which one of the current generation is the update-unicorn.
I'm still rocking an iPhone 5. I use it mainly for browsing, news apps and spotify. It has the latest OS, all new apps are usable (except games of course).
Recently the battery got swollen, I took it to an apple shop and got a replacement (a refurbished iPhone 5) for 100 dollars.
Recently the battery got swollen, I took it to an apple shop and got a replacement (a refurbished iPhone 5) for 100 dollars.
iOS 11 won't support iPhone 5 unfortunately, see:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_5
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_5
I've tried android twice and both times were bad experiences but from recommended phones from people. My first iphone experience was bad (iPhone4) but I picked up again from 6s plus and never looked back.
AFAIR, when the iPhone hit the markets, they were coupled with pricy contracts, totalling easily north of 2k EUR in fixed costs.
Another way to look at it:
$1000 for two years. After two years, sell the phone for $300-$400.
That's $25-$29 per month. Around $1 per day.
$1000 for two years. After two years, sell the phone for $300-$400.
That's $25-$29 per month. Around $1 per day.
You can make that excuse for everything. I don't want to pay "Just $1 per day" on overpriced items. I'd rather pay $0.7 per day on a ok-priced item.
I hope all of this hostility from Apple will result in lower marketshare and a slow fade into oblivion. I use Apple products because they're the best, but if I have to spend $1.4k for a phone and $3.5k for a computer I'll hope MS and GOOG have somewhat caught up to the quality because it's getting tiring.
I hope all of this hostility from Apple will result in lower marketshare and a slow fade into oblivion. I use Apple products because they're the best, but if I have to spend $1.4k for a phone and $3.5k for a computer I'll hope MS and GOOG have somewhat caught up to the quality because it's getting tiring.
I wasn't making an excuse. I think $1 per day is quite a lot, especially when comparing it to a $200 phone. They are almost identical.
As the Apple increases the price of the iphone, people purchasing it is becoming far less. Since the number of people purchasing the iphone decreases, increasing the prices keeps Apples profits up.
Apple is not an innovative company anymore, but trying to be a Bentley in the phone market.
Apple is not an innovative company anymore, but trying to be a Bentley in the phone market.
Why couldn't they build iPhones in Brazil? What happened there?
I didn't even recalled they wanted to make iPhones here, but this article [1] basically says that "its more expensive than building them in China" and that some tax incentive laws were being disputed by the World Trade Orgnization.
[1] https://www.tecmundo.com.br/iphone/118381-decisao-foxconn-ip...
[1] https://www.tecmundo.com.br/iphone/118381-decisao-foxconn-ip...
What's wrong with people that they would pay $1000+ for a phone that is maybe only 5% better than a $200 one?
iPhone has lost its glamour
You may think this price is ridiculous, but iPhones are slowly dying for two to four generaltions already. The only people still on iPhone are the ones who consider it too hard to switch to Android (low IT skills), or the ones who feel some fan-like loyalty. The price matches that perfectly, exploiting the weak and stupid.
PS: Why do I call fans stupid? The company isn't 1% as loyal to you as you are to them. If you still continue to be loyal, it can't be a smart decision.
PS: Why do I call fans stupid? The company isn't 1% as loyal to you as you are to them. If you still continue to be loyal, it can't be a smart decision.
Eric Schmidt has said he uses an iPhone. Elon Musk uses an iPhone 7. Mark Zuckerburg uses a MacBook Air. Travis Kalnick uses an iPhone. Most people who I know that work as engineers at Google and Facebook in the US use iPhones. But sure, they are weak and stupid and you are enlightened.
The iPhone 7 which released last year is more powerful than the Galaxy S8. Android phones lag embarrassingly behind in terms of CPU performance, disk write speeds, and software updates. If those things don't matter to you, I suppose you could get an Android phone for the AMOLED screen(though the new iPhone is reportedly going to have that too) or customization.
But to say that the only reason people buy iPhones is because they're stupid is embarrassing, really. I mean Apple weren't the company that have customers refusing to give back a phone which literally catches on fire.
The iPhone 7 which released last year is more powerful than the Galaxy S8. Android phones lag embarrassingly behind in terms of CPU performance, disk write speeds, and software updates. If those things don't matter to you, I suppose you could get an Android phone for the AMOLED screen(though the new iPhone is reportedly going to have that too) or customization.
But to say that the only reason people buy iPhones is because they're stupid is embarrassing, really. I mean Apple weren't the company that have customers refusing to give back a phone which literally catches on fire.
> The iPhone 7 which released last year is more powerful than the Galaxy S8.
And yet, the Galaxy S8, Xperia XZ Premium, etc, can play Gamecube games at full speed via Dolphin. No iPhone can do this.
And yet, the Galaxy S8, Xperia XZ Premium, etc, can play Gamecube games at full speed via Dolphin. No iPhone can do this.
A) You don't know what an engineer is, obviously. So your examples had exactly zero impact. lol.
B) The Galaxy S4 with Android 2.2 is more powerful than the iPhone 7.
C) There are two reasons. Both may apply to you, though. Reality is really hard to accept, I know.
D) Macbooks are really good. That doesn't give any additional points to the iPhone, though. I use one myself and am happy with it. It is well designed and combines strong features from both Enterprise and Opensource world.
B) The Galaxy S4 with Android 2.2 is more powerful than the iPhone 7.
C) There are two reasons. Both may apply to you, though. Reality is really hard to accept, I know.
D) Macbooks are really good. That doesn't give any additional points to the iPhone, though. I use one myself and am happy with it. It is well designed and combines strong features from both Enterprise and Opensource world.
A) I am an engineer, and at my previous company almost every engineer (9/10) had an iPhone. You should also know better than to insinuate that Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, or Eric Schmidt aren't engineers, considering the companies they've created.
B) Citation needed.
C) What are the two reasons, specifically?
The biggest argument I hear about using Android is that it's customizable, but I would argue that 99% of people, engineers or not, wouldn't customize their phone enough to matter. I would much rather get an iPhone because, even disregarding or accepting the customizability argument, iPhones are less intrusive on your life (I don't want Google to know where I am at all times or know my phone habits), and get updates and work years after they are released. Those two objective reasons alone are enough to warrant me buying an iPhone.
B) Citation needed.
C) What are the two reasons, specifically?
The biggest argument I hear about using Android is that it's customizable, but I would argue that 99% of people, engineers or not, wouldn't customize their phone enough to matter. I would much rather get an iPhone because, even disregarding or accepting the customizability argument, iPhones are less intrusive on your life (I don't want Google to know where I am at all times or know my phone habits), and get updates and work years after they are released. Those two objective reasons alone are enough to warrant me buying an iPhone.
Look. Think about a guy. He stands behind a horse. The horse kicks him in the face. For most people this would hurt. But he doesn't process that feedback. How do you explain to him that it's a bad idea to get close to that horse from its back side?
If you can show me a strategy, maybe I can explain to you why iPhones are badly designed. it should be obvious by using it.
Examples:
a) you get a notification that you have a new mail, whatsapp message or similar. You open the app. Only then the App is able to actually start downloading the content. This is an example of Apps not really being able to work in the background. 80% of what you want to do with a computer you can't do with an iPhone.
b) The keyboard has no features to write more quickly, e.g. by swiping. Also the suggestions aren't learning from your input. This means each interaction is very painful instead of being done quickly.
c) Click on a Youtube link in FB or Twitter. It will not open the Youtube App, but it will open an app internal browser. From there you can manually redirect to the browser and only then you can open it in Youtube. There is no real event mechanism, or it isn't opened to App developers.
d) The costumizability results in you being protected by default, because App developers already have more freedom to provide sane defaults. Even if you never use customizibility yourself, you already gain from it.
If you can show me a strategy, maybe I can explain to you why iPhones are badly designed. it should be obvious by using it.
Examples:
a) you get a notification that you have a new mail, whatsapp message or similar. You open the app. Only then the App is able to actually start downloading the content. This is an example of Apps not really being able to work in the background. 80% of what you want to do with a computer you can't do with an iPhone.
b) The keyboard has no features to write more quickly, e.g. by swiping. Also the suggestions aren't learning from your input. This means each interaction is very painful instead of being done quickly.
c) Click on a Youtube link in FB or Twitter. It will not open the Youtube App, but it will open an app internal browser. From there you can manually redirect to the browser and only then you can open it in Youtube. There is no real event mechanism, or it isn't opened to App developers.
d) The costumizability results in you being protected by default, because App developers already have more freedom to provide sane defaults. Even if you never use customizibility yourself, you already gain from it.
Have you used iOS or are you making assumptions based on what you think you know? If it was obvious why iOS was badly designed then I wouldn't have to ask.
a) It depends on how the app works but in general you are right. But this is to save data, especially in cases where there are a lot of images. Some apps do download the content when it receives the notification as well.
b) Are you suggesting typing is that much more difficult than swiping on a keyboard? Even if that were the case, you can download a keyboard from the App Store that allows you to use a swiping motion on the keyboard.
c) That's more Facebook or Twitter's fault for not handling the same events as the built in browser, not the failing of the OS.
d) That doesn't make sense. You're protected because app developers have the freedom to provide sane defaults? What about the bad actors that don't provide sane defaults or add malware? I'd rather trust the OS to enforce sane defaults than trust the app developer to, because at least the people that make the OS are generally competent, whereas app developers are more likely to not be.
a) It depends on how the app works but in general you are right. But this is to save data, especially in cases where there are a lot of images. Some apps do download the content when it receives the notification as well.
b) Are you suggesting typing is that much more difficult than swiping on a keyboard? Even if that were the case, you can download a keyboard from the App Store that allows you to use a swiping motion on the keyboard.
c) That's more Facebook or Twitter's fault for not handling the same events as the built in browser, not the failing of the OS.
d) That doesn't make sense. You're protected because app developers have the freedom to provide sane defaults? What about the bad actors that don't provide sane defaults or add malware? I'd rather trust the OS to enforce sane defaults than trust the app developer to, because at least the people that make the OS are generally competent, whereas app developers are more likely to not be.
a) Then push notification itself has a JSON data structure, if you need to prefetch more than that (movies, e-books) a silent push will start a background process specifically designed to do just that.
b) Custom keyboards are a thing for at least three generations of iOS
c) It's entirely possible to open an application from a webpage
d) pure horse shit. In iOS you could prevent applications from reading your contacts from the get go. Until recently permissions were an all or nothing thing in Android. Trusting app developers to respect your or other app developers interests is like trusting a crack head with your credit card. Poor battery life was one of the direct results. It's really no mystery why Google is slowly moving to the iOS side of permissions and background processes.
b) Custom keyboards are a thing for at least three generations of iOS
c) It's entirely possible to open an application from a webpage
d) pure horse shit. In iOS you could prevent applications from reading your contacts from the get go. Until recently permissions were an all or nothing thing in Android. Trusting app developers to respect your or other app developers interests is like trusting a crack head with your credit card. Poor battery life was one of the direct results. It's really no mystery why Google is slowly moving to the iOS side of permissions and background processes.
> iPhones are slowly dying for two to four generaltions already
I know it might be nice to believe that if you're a die-hard Android fan, but this is frankly nonsense. iOS is as popular as it ever was.
I know it might be nice to believe that if you're a die-hard Android fan, but this is frankly nonsense. iOS is as popular as it ever was.
Really good argument. Thanks for not totally dropping the idea of a reasonable discussion, just because someone said "God is dead", ehm, I mean "iPhone is bad".
Actually I believe there will be another popularity spike and Apple will be a profitable company for another 20 years. But that doesn't mean iPhone's not dying. If you are that big, you can have both together.
Personal theory of mine, based on watching th tech market for 10 years (no claim to being an expert):
You are growing if you are funded and have great ideas that you can validate to be the top of the game. This is what the first iPhone and iPod did.
You are the constant leader when you provide top notch quality for a high but affordable price. That's what the Macbook does. Without an iPod like great idea you won't be able to beat that market leadership. They shouldn't expect growth with that product line, but they are really save.
And then there are losers. They may be anywhere in the market, based on previous successes and failures, but they are objectively worse than the competition and more expensive for about the same quality. This is where the iPhone stands. It lacks engineering wise so badly, it's not possible to overcome the hurdles without a complete rewrite. But the market is satisfied already. A complete rewrite is a high risk to stay on top in a stagnating market. Not worth it. The better strategy is to drain engineering costs and instead focus on marketing completely. That's what you can see with the iPhone happening. Each generation is worse than the previous, and mostly the hype and ownership-prestige is what keeps people coming back again and again. Putting money from engineering into marketing/sales will actually boost your profits for some time.
But marketing alone can't keep you on top forever. At some point the difference between fantasy and actual product will be so big that most people can't avoid the truth anymore. Then you will become the next Nokia.
Btw. I think Apple as a company still has a lot of opportunities. But the iPhone branch is dying. Hope I could explain why and why I believe that we will even see popularity rise in the next few years. Still engineering savy people have already switched away from iPhone. 100% sure about that part. For business reasons I needed to buy an ipHone 6s, and for powerusers it's a pain in the A, with no technical chance to make up the difference.
Actually I believe there will be another popularity spike and Apple will be a profitable company for another 20 years. But that doesn't mean iPhone's not dying. If you are that big, you can have both together.
Personal theory of mine, based on watching th tech market for 10 years (no claim to being an expert):
You are growing if you are funded and have great ideas that you can validate to be the top of the game. This is what the first iPhone and iPod did.
You are the constant leader when you provide top notch quality for a high but affordable price. That's what the Macbook does. Without an iPod like great idea you won't be able to beat that market leadership. They shouldn't expect growth with that product line, but they are really save.
And then there are losers. They may be anywhere in the market, based on previous successes and failures, but they are objectively worse than the competition and more expensive for about the same quality. This is where the iPhone stands. It lacks engineering wise so badly, it's not possible to overcome the hurdles without a complete rewrite. But the market is satisfied already. A complete rewrite is a high risk to stay on top in a stagnating market. Not worth it. The better strategy is to drain engineering costs and instead focus on marketing completely. That's what you can see with the iPhone happening. Each generation is worse than the previous, and mostly the hype and ownership-prestige is what keeps people coming back again and again. Putting money from engineering into marketing/sales will actually boost your profits for some time.
But marketing alone can't keep you on top forever. At some point the difference between fantasy and actual product will be so big that most people can't avoid the truth anymore. Then you will become the next Nokia.
Btw. I think Apple as a company still has a lot of opportunities. But the iPhone branch is dying. Hope I could explain why and why I believe that we will even see popularity rise in the next few years. Still engineering savy people have already switched away from iPhone. 100% sure about that part. For business reasons I needed to buy an ipHone 6s, and for powerusers it's a pain in the A, with no technical chance to make up the difference.
I like paying $1,000 for a device like this because I want Apple (and competitors) to know I would absolutely spend $1,000 - BUT it had better hold up, perform beautifully, bring me something technologically compelling, and do some damn cool stuff.
At $1,000 sets a very high bar. Excited to see if they meet it!
At $1,000 sets a very high bar. Excited to see if they meet it!
1000 USD phone, still no audiophile option to listen to music. I am extremely disapointed with the direction Apple is going with all of this "we remove X because you do not need it anymore" approach.
I always thought the Audiophile option was an external DAC? Though the DAC that iOS devices have shipped with was traditionally quite strong.
I have an Oppo HA-2 and it works great with my iOS devices (though i use it as a portable amp for my work computer).
There's also the likes of Audeze who are shipping Headphones and Earphones with a Lightning cable DAC in addition to the usual 3.5mm TRS jack.
I have an Oppo HA-2 and it works great with my iOS devices (though i use it as a portable amp for my work computer).
There's also the likes of Audeze who are shipping Headphones and Earphones with a Lightning cable DAC in addition to the usual 3.5mm TRS jack.
Quoting from the article I linked you:
>>Analysis & Recommendations >>As expected, the analog audio output of the iPhone 6S Plus is extraordinarily good. It has only >>half the distortion of the already extraordinary iPhone 6 Plus.
>>Apple has more smart people and more resources than any other audio company on the planet, so as >>we see when it comes to audio engineering, the iPhone easily outdoes many so-called "audiophile" >>products.
>>For enjoying music, you will probably get poorer performance if you waste your time and money >>with outboard DACs or headphone amplifiers; the iPhone already has the best there is.
>>Analysis & Recommendations >>As expected, the analog audio output of the iPhone 6S Plus is extraordinarily good. It has only >>half the distortion of the already extraordinary iPhone 6 Plus.
>>Apple has more smart people and more resources than any other audio company on the planet, so as >>we see when it comes to audio engineering, the iPhone easily outdoes many so-called "audiophile" >>products.
>>For enjoying music, you will probably get poorer performance if you waste your time and money >>with outboard DACs or headphone amplifiers; the iPhone already has the best there is.
Depends. I am not a crazy audiophile so I am happy with the DAC in the iPhone 6s.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/iphone-6s-plus-audio-qualit...
http://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/iphone-6s-plus-audio-qualit...
I would argue that the 3.5mm jack is a convenience rather than an audiophile feature. Some definitely would prefer to use a wired connection without an adapter, which I can understand. In terms of audiophile quality, if one is happy listening to a digital music source (and there's plenty of debate on that), the ability to use the DAC of your choice rather than whatever is supplied by Apple in phone is a feature. That's a motivating factor in purchasing component systems rather than all-in-one devices.
The story around current DAC's isn't good and certainly can (and hopefully will!) be improved.
So, yes, the audiophile experience with an iPhone isn't great, but I'd argue that's a function of the current DAC situation (as my sibling comment points out), not the removal of the 3.5mm jack.
The story around current DAC's isn't good and certainly can (and hopefully will!) be improved.
So, yes, the audiophile experience with an iPhone isn't great, but I'd argue that's a function of the current DAC situation (as my sibling comment points out), not the removal of the 3.5mm jack.
It appears as though a lot of iPhone and Apple fans are down-voting you.
I; too, would expect a better DAC+AMP for that money.
HN has 10-20% fanboys, so I don't mind. I actually preferred Apple because it used to have a decent DAC so I did not carry a music player with me my phone was just fine.
1000 USD phone, still no audiophile option to listen to music
Can't it send music via USB to an external DAC anymore?
Can't it send music via USB to an external DAC anymore?
You absolutely can:
- https://discussions.apple.com/thread/7932507?start=0
- https://www.whathifi.com/news/apple-ios-update-prevents-dacs...
- https://www.head-fi.org/threads/iphone-7-severe-issue-with-m...
Now I just really dont understand in what world it makes sense to have extra things lingering around your headphone/phone when Apple is motly about ergonomics and UX. You think that I buy a 1000 USD phone and than a DAC as well because they removed it from the phone? It does not make too much sense to me.
- https://discussions.apple.com/thread/7932507?start=0
- https://www.whathifi.com/news/apple-ios-update-prevents-dacs...
- https://www.head-fi.org/threads/iphone-7-severe-issue-with-m...
Now I just really dont understand in what world it makes sense to have extra things lingering around your headphone/phone when Apple is motly about ergonomics and UX. You think that I buy a 1000 USD phone and than a DAC as well because they removed it from the phone? It does not make too much sense to me.
And in terms of iPhones / Population / Apple Store, the US has it most. While in Japan 60% of the Smartphone are iPhone ( i.e Higher the US usage ) they have less then 10 Apple Stores. And it is the same everywhere else, which means any mark up in a certain countries has nothing to do with its Operation with in, and more to do with a Sales Tax, Global Pricing structure.
For Example, HongKong used to have the cheapest iPhone around the world, it was priced the same as US and because there are no Sales tax, it was 10-15% cheaper. Making HK the trading ground for all of SEA region or mainly China. ( Hence Tim Cook continue to blame HK market is more of a delusion rather then fact. ) Around iPhone 5 Apple started to put up additional $100 USD to ALL iPhone price in HK, as a way to combat the black market trading, and if everyone else where making money of it, why not keep the profits itself?
What has all these got to do with $1K iPhone. Well Apple already knew certain people are buying at those prices, again why not make a product that fit those segment? And to re balance the prices across the Globe?
And we have known for long there is no way to make the cutting edge devices every 12 months and ship 200M+ of it. They will need a product that only 10-20% of those 200M will buy, and have the best technology in it.
And mind you, shipping cutting edge technology to 20-40M user a year isn't any easier then the 200M+ iPhone.